The threshold changes what a review is for
Most funding programmes let a strong criterion carry a weak one. Eurostars does not. Three equally-weighted criteria are each scored 1 to 6 by three remote experts, and if any one of the three averages below 3.6 the application is rejected — there is no total to rescue it. Everything above the line is then ranked, so clearing 3.6 is the beginning of the competition rather than the end of it.
That makes the useful question narrow and answerable: which criterion is closest to the line, and what specifically is holding it there? A review that returns a flattering overall impression is worse than useless here, because the thing that will reject you is the one paragraph nobody flagged.
How Eurostars is actually assessed
Three criteria, equally weighted
Excellence, Impact, and Quality and efficiency of the implementation, each with its own sub-criteria. GrantWise scores on the same native 1–6 scale rather than translating into a Horizon-style mark out of five, because the translation is where calibration gets lost.
3.6 or nothing
Every criterion average must reach 3.6. The report shows each criterion against that line explicitly, and treats the closest one as the headline finding — not the one with the most issues, but the one most likely to end the application.
Selection is by rank
There is no fixed funding score. Applications above threshold are ranked and the top of the list goes to the Independent Evaluation Panel. Passing is therefore reported as passing, never as likely to be funded.
The technical annex is skipped, on purpose
It is too large for a single reliable pass and adds little over the application itself. If you upload it, the review tells you it was not read rather than quietly pretending otherwise. Honesty about what was not assessed is part of what you are paying for.
What the review actually checks
A sample of the questions the Eurostars route asks. Each produces a located, evidenced finding with a concrete correction.
- Whether every criterion clears 3.6 — a single criterion below the line rejects the whole application, so the weakest one is decisive.
- Whether any partner reads like a customer rather than a collaborator, and whether the international collaboration is genuinely justified.
- Whether the Gantt, the written schedule and the work package cost table agree with each other.
- Whether milestones have pass criteria someone else could verify.
- Whether the market is named by country and segment rather than described as "the European market".
- Whether each work package has an owner, effort, dependencies and a deliverable an evaluator could actually check.
- Whether the risk table names risks that could plausibly end the project, or only risks that are comfortable to disclose.
- Whether any number appears twice in your documents with two different values.
Every issue carries its location in your text, the criterion and sub-criterion it damages, a concrete correction, a model-answer pattern, and a re-review test you can run after editing.
What you upload, and what comes back
What to upload
Required: your Eurostars application (PDF, DOCX, TXT or MD).
- The technical annex is not reviewed; upload it if you like and the report will confirm it was skipped.
- Optional official call material sharpens the review where it is call-specific.
What comes back
A free score preview by email within 5–8 minutes, with your two highest-priority fixes.
- The complete report adds all three criterion scores against the 3.6 line, the ranked blockers and the full issue register.
- A shareable PDF, useful when the fixes belong to different consortium partners.
Start with the free preview
See where each criterion sits against 3.6 and the two corrections that matter most, before deciding whether the full report is worth €150. If it gives you nothing worth acting on, email us within 14 days and we refund it in full.
Questions
Is this an official Eurostars evaluation?
No. It is a simulation built to be faithful to the Eurostars scoring method and thresholds so gaps surface before you submit. It is not a Eureka assessment, it does not predict funding decisions, and you should read the official call documentation yourself.
Our consortium spans three countries. Does that complicate it?
No — it is part of what gets checked. The review tests whether the collaboration is justified by the work rather than by eligibility, and whether any partner's role reads as a customer relationship. The shareable PDF helps when corrections belong to different partners.
Can I re-review after making changes?
Yes, and it is the intended way to use this. Comparing the two reports shows which issues resolved, persisted, worsened or appeared in the new draft.
What happens to my application?
Files are transmitted securely for transient processing in the EU. They are not retained and are not used to train models. The generated report may be stored for up to seven days so you can open it from your private email link.
Ready when you are
No account. No subscription. The preview costs nothing.
Review my Eurostars application