Two calls, same programme, opposite games
In one call, 3% of the proposals that were good enough got funded. In the other, 100% did.
Two Horizon calls, both with published evaluation results.
HORIZON-CL4-2026-05-MAT-PROD-25: 108 proposals submitted. 99 cleared the quality threshold. 3 were funded.
HORIZON-WIDERA-2023-ACCESS-06-01 (Hop On Facility, first cut-off): 87 proposals submitted. 73 cleared the quality threshold. 73 were funded.
Every proposal that was good enough in the second call received money. In the first, ninety-six proposals that were good enough did not.
The difference is invisible from the outside
Nothing on the topic page tells you which one you are entering. The deadline looks the same. The budget line looks the same. The difference only exists in the evaluation results, published afterwards, on a tab most people never open. Across the 563 results we have verified, this ratio runs from 3% to 100% — the single widest source of variation we have found in EU calls, and it is almost never part of the conversation when a consortium decides where to apply.
A fair caveat: the Hop On Facility is a widening instrument with a specific design, so these are not equivalent opportunities — same programme and same funder, but not like-for-like. That is precisely the point: instruments inside one programme reward opposite behaviour, and the published results are what distinguishes them.
Opposite strategies
Where nearly everyone above threshold is funded, the job is to clear the bar cleanly and not lose points on avoidable things: eligibility, completeness, a weakly justified partner role.
Where three out of ninety-nine are funded, clearing the bar is the entry ticket and the entire outcome is decided above it. The same effort spread evenly across sections is the wrong allocation.
What a project team should do
Before you decide which call to enter, look up the last published result for each one in the results explorer, and let the funded share of above-threshold proposals decide how much of your effort goes into clearing the bar versus standing above it.
One email per new result, nothing else. Privacy
Every figure traces to evaluation results published by the European Commission on the Funding & Tenders portal, and can be checked in the results explorer. Figures are as at the date above; the underlying table refreshes weekly as new results are published. Centrally managed programmes only — national agency actions (Erasmus+ KA1, KA210) do not publish submission counts and are not covered.