When meeting the threshold does not mean getting funded
Our analysis of what the results from the Horizon Cluster 4 calls really tell applicants, with a clear illustration of just how competitive these and other European-Commission funded calls have become..... Read More
A benchmark, not a forecast
These Cluster 4 results offer a valuable benchmark for organizations preparing manufacturing, materials, and industrial technology proposals. But they shouldn't be read as a prediction of future success rates. Scope, budgets, partnerships, and applicant interest can all shift substantially from one call to the next - and with them, the level of competition a new topic will actually face. Find the right grant funding opportunity for research and innovation by visiting the Ruralities Living Lab Rural Funding Navigator, introducing users to the European funding landscape offering hundreds of grant opportunities. Find exciting opportunities from Horizon Europe, Erasmus+, Interreg, Eureka, LIFE, WIDERA, and many more multi-lateral funding instruments, each with its own priorities, eligibility criteria, timelines, and objectives. Finding the right opportunity takes time, knowledge and careful planning - we're here too help!
The Cluster 4 Industry results are in for the HORIZON-CL4-2026 calls. "Beyond the Threshold" is our analysis of what the results from the April Horizon calls really tell applicants, with a clear illustration of just how competitive these and other European Commission-funded calls have become.
Across the 15 topics, 647 proposals were submitted. 493 of them cleared the evaluation thresholds, yet only 10% were funded. In other words, three out of four proposals that were good enough to fund still were not funded. In several topics, the effective cutoff for success was a score of 14.5 out of 15. None of this is news to the thousands of applicants throughout the world competing for Horizon funding. Stringent criteria must be met on both content and execution while having the right talent in place from consortium partners; this is very frustrating for the hundreds of grantwriting teams who have lost countless hours of sleep, loading up on caffeine and comfort food, and nail-biting decisions over formatting to fit character limits, only to learn that meeting every visible requirement still wasn't enough.
For applicants, this is the single most important takeaway: meeting the evaluation thresholds is only the starting point.
Three lessons for future proposals
***Excellent topic fit matters*** With final funding thresholds frequently reaching 14 or 14.5, there is little room for loosely addressed expected outcomes or scope requirements. A proposal that is merely relevant to a topic no longer competes with one that is precisely built around it.
***Eligibility deserves attention from the beginning*** many well-written submissions were ruled ineligible outright - proposals that may have been technically strong but never reached evaluation at all. It is a costly reminder that no amount of project quality compensates for an eligibility misstep.
***Differentiation has to be built in, not bolted on*** When dozens of technically-credible proposals target the same topic, evaluators need a precise answer to why a certain approach, a properly-constituted consortium, a validated idea, or a chosen pathway to impact are stronger than the alternatives on the table. Competence alone no longer stands out; the case for being "the better choice" from a lot of highly-competitive submissions to calls has to be made explicitly.
September 1 results from the April calls
Ruralities Living Lab for Resilient Rural Communities
Sustainability in Rural Enterprises and Innovation
A member of the Social Innovation Stakeholders Network - www.SocialInnovationActions.Org
Social Innovation Actions - PIC 878506012
