Horizon Europe success rate benchmarks: what ‘good’ looks like by programme type and how to sanity-check your odds
Intro
Across Horizon Europe, the average proposal success rate has been about 16% in the programme’s first three years, but the range by topic and instrument is wide. A sensible bid decision starts with understanding what the Horizon Europe success rate measures, where the real bottlenecks sit, and how to benchmark your call against comparable ones.
What the ‘Horizon Europe success rate’ actually measures
The Horizon Europe success rate is usually reported as the share of eligible proposals that end up funded. That sounds simple, but two details matter in practice: first, a proposal can be above the quality threshold and still not get funded because the call budget runs out; second, some calls use a two-stage process that effectively creates two different success rates (stage 1 invitation and final funding).
How evaluation scoring works (and why thresholds are not the same as competitiveness)
Most collaborative calls use three criteria: Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation. Each criterion is scored from 0 to 5, with half marks possible. A proposal typically needs at least 3 out of 5 on each criterion and 10 out of 15 overall to pass the thresholds, but passing thresholds is not the same as being fundable in an oversubscribed call.
Two-stage vs single-stage Horizon Europe calls
In two-stage calls, assessors score a shorter stage 1 submission and only evaluate Excellence and Impact. In the standard evaluation form for RIAs and IAs, the minimum threshold for each of those two criteria at stage 1 is 4 out of 5. After scoring, the call coordinator sets an overall cut-off to limit how many proposals are invited to stage 2, aiming for the invited proposals’ requested budget to be close to three times the available budget (and not less than two times).
Benchmarks by programme type: what ‘good’ looks like
Start with the only benchmark that travels well: your call’s own historic data and topic conditions. Horizon Europe includes very different instruments, from mono-beneficiary grants (such as some Excellent Science actions) to large consortia projects in Pillar II. A single headline success rate hides those differences. Instead, set a benchmark at the level you can actually control:
- programme part and action type (RIA, IA, CSA, etc)
- topic specificity and mandatory conditions (for example, partner types, TRL, or mandatory pilots)
- competition dynamics (number of proposals and typical size of requested budget)
How to sanity-check your odds using the Horizon Dashboard
The European Commission’s Horizon Dashboard lets you filter evaluated proposals and success rates by programme part, call and topic. A practical sanity-check workflow looks like this:
- Pull the relevant programme part and topic family and review how many proposals were evaluated and funded.
- Compare the budget per project and the typical consortium size to your planned configuration.
- Check whether the call is one-stage or two-stage and whether it uses lump sums or extra criteria.
- If the topic is new, use the closest previous work programme topics as a proxy and treat the result as a range, not a point estimate.
Why Horizon Europe bids fail (even when the science is strong)
Most rejections are not about novelty. They are about fit, credibility and delivery. Common failure modes include:
- Topic misfit: objectives and expected outcomes are restated, not addressed with a clear pathway.
- Impact that reads like marketing: no quantified adoption pathway, no credible exploitation or policy uptake logic.
- Consortium gaps: missing end users, data holders, standardisation bodies or deployment partners that the topic implicitly expects.
- Work package planning that does not match the ambition: unclear dependencies, missing risk mitigations, or effort that does not reconcile with deliverables.
- Budget credibility issues: cost drivers are not explained and partner effort does not map cleanly to tasks.
A decision framework for bid teams
Use a short go or no-go gate that forces clarity early:
- Can the coordinator explain the topic fit in two sentences without jargon?
- Is there a credible ‘Impact owner’ for each key outcome (policy, standardisation, market, public services)?
- Does the work plan resolve the top technical uncertainties with named tasks, tests, and decision points?
- Are the top three delivery risks costed and mitigated (procurement lead times, data access, approvals, integration)?
- Can every partner justify their role in one paragraph with a measurable contribution?
- Is there enough time to run a proper internal review cycle before submission?
Where specialist support can help
Bid teams often bring in external support when internal capacity is the limiting factor rather than idea quality. FI Group by EPSA supports organisations with Horizon Europe bid development by standardising evidence, partner roles, work packages and submission controls across jurisdictions, which helps reduce internal burden and improve audit readiness for grant delivery. See Horizon Europe success rate guidance.
FAQs
What is a typical Horizon Europe success rate?
Across 2021 to 2023, the average proposal success rate reported in official programme key figures is about 16%. Your topic may be materially higher or lower.
Does a proposal that passes thresholds get funded?
No. Thresholds determine eligibility for ranking. Funding depends on the final ranked list and the available call budget, so above-threshold proposals can still be unfunded.
How does a two-stage call change the success rate?
Two-stage calls add a gate. Stage 1 is scored on Excellence and Impact only, with higher minimum thresholds, and only a subset of proposals is invited to submit a full proposal at stage 2.
Where can I find reliable Horizon Europe grant statistics?
Use the Horizon Dashboard on the EU Funding and Tenders Portal for official statistics on evaluated proposals, funded projects and success rates.
What is the fastest way to improve competitiveness?
Improve clarity of topic fit, tighten the impact pathway, and make the implementation plan testable: named tasks, measurable outputs, dependencies and risk mitigations.
