Understanding the Horizon Europe Evaluation Process

From Submission to Funding Decision

You've spent weeks — possibly months — writing your Horizon Europe proposal. You click "Submit" on the Funding & Tenders Portal. Then what?

This guide explains exactly how proposals are evaluated, based on the official Horizon Europe Programme Guide published by the European Commission.

The Scoring System

Every Horizon Europe proposal is scored on a 0 to 5 scale for each of the three evaluation criteria:

Score	Meaning
0	The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing or incomplete information
1	Poor — the criterion is inadequately addressed or there are serious inherent weaknesses
2	Fair — the proposal broadly addresses the criterion but there are significant weaknesses
3	Good — the proposal addresses the criterion well but with a number of shortcomings
4	Very good — the proposal addresses the criterion very well but with a small number of shortcomings
5	Excellent — the proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion with no or minor shortcomings

Source: Horizon Europe Programme Guide

Threshold Requirements

A proposal must score at least 3 out of 5 on each individual criterion to be considered for funding. This is a hard threshold — a proposal scoring 5/5/2 would be rejected despite its high marks in two areas.

The three criteria carry equal weight in calculating the overall score, which means the maximum possible score is 15 (5+5+5).

The Three Criteria in Detail

1. Excellence

Evaluators assess the quality and credibility of your:

• Objectives — Are they clear, measurable, and plausible?
• Methodology — Is the research approach sound and appropriate?
• Novelty — Does the proposal go beyond the current state of the art?
• Interdisciplinarity — Where relevant, does it effectively combine disciplines?

2. Impact

Evaluators assess:

• Credible pathways to achieving expected outcomes and impacts
• Scale and significance of the expected contributions
• Dissemination, exploitation, and communication plans — Are they concrete and suited to the audience?
• Open science practices — Data management, open access to publications and results

3. Quality and Efficiency of Implementation

Evaluators assess:

• Work plan — Are work packages, deliverables, and milestones clear and realistic?
• Consortium — Does it have the right balance of expertise, resources, and geographic coverage?
• Management structure — Is governance and decision-making well designed?
• Resource allocation — Is the budget justified and proportionate?

How the Evaluation Works Step by Step

Step 1: Eligibility and Admissibility Check

Before expert evaluation begins, the European Commission checks whether your proposal meets formal requirements:

• Submitted before the deadline
• Complete (all required parts filled)
• Within the page limits
• Meets the consortium requirements (typically 3 entities from 3 different countries)

Proposals that fail these checks are rejected without evaluation.

Step 2: Individual Expert Assessment

Each proposal is assessed by independent external experts selected from the Commission's expert database. The number of evaluators per proposal varies by call, but typically at least 3 experts review each proposal independently.

Experts are selected based on their scientific expertise, geographic diversity, gender balance, and sector balance (academic vs. industry). They must declare any conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Consensus Meeting

After individual assessments, evaluators discuss their scores and comments in a consensus meeting (sometimes called a panel meeting). The goal is to agree on a single set of scores and a consolidated Evaluation Summary Report (ESR).

The ESR is the document you receive after evaluation — it contains the agreed scores and written comments for each criterion.

Step 4: Ranking and Funding Decision

Proposals that pass all thresholds are ranked by their overall score. Funding is awarded from the top of the ranked list until the available budget for that call is exhausted.

In case of tied scores, the Programme Guide specifies a priority order to break ties:

1. First, the score for Excellence is used to break the tie
2. Then the score for Impact
3. If scores are still tied, additional factors may be considered (such as gender balance, geographic diversity, or alignment with the call's priorities)

Step 5: Grant Preparation

If your proposal is selected, you enter the Grant Agreement Preparation (GAP) phase. This involves:

• Confirming the financial and legal information of all partners
• Finalising the work plan and budget details
• Signing the Grant Agreement

This phase can take several months.

What You Receive After Evaluation

Regardless of the outcome, you receive an Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) containing:

• The score for each criterion (0–5)
• Written comments explaining the strengths and weaknesses identified by evaluators
• The overall ranking (above or below the funding threshold)

The ESR is a valuable document even for rejected proposals — the feedback can significantly improve your next submission.

Tips for Maximising Your Score

Make the Evaluator's Job Easy

Evaluators review many proposals in a short time. Structure your proposal so they can quickly find the information they need:

• Use the headings and structure suggested in the proposal template
• Bold key points — evaluators scan before they read
• Include a summary table of objectives at the start of the Excellence section
• Cross-reference work packages to objectives explicitly

Address the Evaluation Criteria Directly

For each section, ask yourself: "Which criterion does this address, and have I provided enough evidence for a score of 5?"

A common mistake is writing a technically excellent proposal that scores poorly on Impact because the pathways to societal benefit are vague.

Learn from Funded Projects

Studying previously funded projects in your topic area reveals patterns in consortium composition, methodology, and scope. The Project Explorer lets you browse funded Horizon Europe and H2020 projects by topic, cluster, and funding scheme.

Key Takeaways

1. Threshold is 3/5 on each criterion — one weak section can sink an otherwise strong proposal
2. Excellence breaks ties — when budgets are tight, scientific quality is the tiebreaker
3. The ESR is your feedback loop — read it carefully and use it to improve resubmissions
4. Structure matters — evaluators assess what they can find, not what you meant to convey

Want to see how your proposal scores before submitting? Try CriteriaI for free — get an AI-generated evaluation in under 30 seconds.