Passing the minimum threshold is not the same as being funded. Most Erasmus+ applications that are rejected were not below the minimum — they scored in the 60–72 range, passed every threshold, and still did not make the funded band because competing applications scored higher.
The difference between a 65-point application and an 82-point application is almost never the quality of the project idea. It is the writing — specifically, how clearly and specifically each section answers the questions the Programme Guide’s evaluation criteria are actually asking.
This guide goes through every criterion and sub-criterion for KA210 and KA220, explaining exactly what a maximum-range score looks like for each component — and what separates a 55–65% score from an 80–90% score on the same criterion.
📋 Key Takeaways
- Evaluators score “the extent to which” each sub-criterion is met — a partial answer gets partial points; a complete, evidenced answer gets full points
- The inclusion and diversity priority is the single most powerful scoring signal — the Programme Guide explicitly calls proposals addressing it “highly relevant”
- Specificity is the consistent differentiator between threshold-passing and upper-range scores across every criterion
- Quality of Project Design carries 30 points in both KA210 and KA220 — it is the criterion with the most sub-criteria and the most room for differentiation
- Impact is consistently the most underscored criterion — most applications treat it as an afterthought rather than a strategic argument
- Every sub-criterion left partially answered is a point loss — reading the award criteria as a checklist before finalising each section is essential
How evaluators actually score applications
Before going through each criterion, one framing principle matters above all others. The Programme Guide defines every evaluation criterion with the phrase: “the extent to which…”
This means scoring is not binary — it is a spectrum. An evaluator is not asking “does this application address innovation?” They are asking “to what degree does this application address innovation?” A partial address gets partial points. A superficial mention gets minimal points. A specific, evidenced, well-integrated treatment gets maximum points.
This framing has a practical implication: every sub-criterion in the award criteria is a specific question your application must answer. An application that answers 6 of the 8 KA220 Relevance sub-criteria will score somewhere around 18–19/25. An application that answers all 8 specifically and completely will score 23–25/25.
The checklist approach — reading every sub-criterion as a question and verifying your application answers it explicitly — is the most reliable method for improving scores in the upper range.
Criterion 1: Relevance
KA210: 30 points maximum, minimum 15 | KA220: 25 points maximum, minimum 13
Relevance is the tiebreaker criterion. In ex-aequo situations, applications are ranked by Relevance score first. This makes it the highest-leverage criterion to optimise beyond the threshold — even a 3-point improvement in Relevance can move an application from the reserve list into the funded band.
What maximum-range Relevance looks like
Maximum-range Relevance scores share five characteristics:
1. A specific, documented problem statement. Not “digital skills are increasingly important” — a concrete, verifiable gap affecting a named target group in a specific context, evidenced by at least 3 sources including at least one per partner country. The strongest needs analyses include primary data — a survey or consultation conducted with the target group — alongside secondary sources.
2. Inclusion and diversity as a design principle, not a priority box. The Programme Guide explicitly states that proposals addressing inclusion and diversity are considered highly relevant — an instruction to evaluators to score them higher. But this only applies when inclusion is genuinely central to the project design, not mentioned in a paragraph. The inclusion group must be named specifically, the need for their inclusion must be documented, and the activities must be designed with their participation in mind from the start.
3. National priorities addressed. Every National Agency publishes European Priorities in the National Context for each call — specific thematic areas or target groups prioritised at national level. A proposal that addresses one of these explicitly is considered highly relevant by the Programme Guide. Most applicants never check their NA’s national priorities. This is a consistent upper-range differentiator.
4. EU added value argued, not stated. “European cooperation enriches our work” scores close to zero on the EU added value sub-criterion. A maximum-range answer explains specifically why these results cannot be produced by a single-country project — because they require comparative data from multiple national contexts, because the methodology only exists in one country and must be transferred, because transferability can only be validated by testing in multiple contexts. The argument must be specific to this project’s logic.
5. Innovation relative to the state of the art. For KA220, innovation is an explicit sub-criterion. Maximum-range scoring requires showing what specifically is new compared to what already exists — not claiming novelty but demonstrating it by comparing to existing approaches and explaining what this project adds. Search the Erasmus+ Results Platform before writing this section.
| Sub-criterion | Threshold-passing (55–65%) | Maximum-range (85–95%) |
|---|---|---|
| Needs analysis | General European challenge + one EU report | Specific target group + 3 sources (one per country) + gap analysis + primary data |
| Priority alignment | Separate priorities paragraph listing all four horizontal priorities | One or two priorities genuinely integrated throughout project design; inclusion group specifically named |
| EU added value | “European cooperation enriches our work” | Specific argument for why results require this transnational approach |
| Innovation (KA220) | “Our approach is innovative” | Comparison to state of the art + specific explanation of what is new |
Criterion 2: Quality of Project Design and Implementation
KA210: 30 points maximum, minimum 15 | KA220: 30 points maximum, minimum 15
This criterion has the most sub-criteria of any criterion — and therefore the most room for score differentiation. It covers objectives, methodology, work plan, inclusion in activity design, digital tools, green practices, civic engagement, indicators, and (for projects with mobility activities) participant profiles, management and recognition of learning outcomes.
Objectives: the gateway sub-criterion
Objectives that are themes (“to improve quality”, “to promote inclusion”) get minimal credit because they cannot be evaluated. Maximum-range objectives are specific, measurable, time-bounded and connected to a documented need. Each objective should be traceable to: the need it addresses, the activities that deliver it and the indicator that measures whether it was achieved. If any of these three connections are missing the objective scores in the threshold range.
Maximum-range objective structure: To [specific action verb] + [specific output or change] + [for whom, defined by profile and numbers] + [by when within the project timeline]
Methodology and work plan
The Programme Guide’s sub-criteria for methodology are specific and each must be addressed:
- Clear, complete and effective work plan — three phases are explicitly named in the Programme Guide: preparation, implementation and sharing results. A work plan missing the preparation phase (most common omission) or the results-sharing phase will score below the upper range on this sub-criterion alone
- Cost-effective resource allocation — the budget must match the activities. Activities described in the narrative must appear in the budget; budget lines must be proportionate. Evaluators are specifically looking for whether resources are allocated to each activity appropriately — large meetings with minor outputs, or major outputs with no staff time budgeted, both raise flags
- Quality control and monitoring — a specific monitoring mechanism must be described: who reviews progress, at what intervals, against what criteria, and what happens if activities fall behind
The digital tools sub-criterion
The Programme Guide is specific about this sub-criterion: it asks whether the project uses digital tools to complement physical activities AND to improve cooperation between partners. It also specifically mentions Erasmus+ online platforms by field — eTwinning for school education, EPALE for adult education, the European Youth Portal for youth projects. Using a named platform relevant to your field scores more highly than a generic “we will use digital tools for communication.”
Maximum-range scoring describes: which specific tools, for which specific purpose, at which stage of the project (preparation, implementation, or follow-up), and how the tool contributes to the project’s objectives — not just to internal coordination.
The indicators sub-criterion — the most consistently missed
The Programme Guide for KA220 Quality of Project Design explicitly requires: “The project clearly describes both qualitative and quantitative indicators, that are realistic, feasible, and contribute to strengthening the overall quality of the project.”
This is one of the most consistently underscored sub-criteria across all applications. Applications that include only quantitative indicators (number of outputs produced, number of participants) miss the qualitative dimension. Applications that include only qualitative indicators (participant satisfaction, competence improvement) miss the quantitative verification. Maximum-range scoring requires both — and they must be linked to specific objectives.
Maximum-range indicators — what they look like
- Quantitative: At least 2 validated outputs produced by Month 18; at least 60 practitioners across both partner countries participate in piloting; training curriculum made freely available on EPALE within 30 days of project completion
- Qualitative: At least 80% of pilot participants report improved confidence in applying the methodology (measured by pre/post competence self-assessment); at least 70% of participating staff implement at least one new practice within 3 months of returning from mobility (measured by follow-up survey)
Criterion 3: Quality of Partnership and Cooperation Arrangements
KA210: 20 points maximum, minimum 10 | KA220: 20 points maximum, minimum 10
The Partnership criterion evaluates whether the consortium is the right one for this project — and whether it is genuinely collaborative rather than coordinator-led with passive partners.
The mix of organisations sub-criterion
The Programme Guide specifies: “an appropriate mix of participating organisations in terms of profile, including grassroots organisations, past experience in the Programme and expertise to successfully complete all project objectives.”
Maximum-range scoring on this sub-criterion demonstrates complementarity — each partner brings something distinct that the others lack. A consortium where all partners work in the same field with the same target group in similar national contexts scores lower than one where partners bring different sectoral expertise, different target group access or different national policy frameworks relevant to the outputs.
The mention of grassroots organisations in the Programme Guide is significant and underused. Evaluators award extra credit for consortia that include smaller, community-level organisations alongside larger institutional partners. This reflects the programme’s widening access objective — and for KA210 specifically, it is one of the most consistent upper-range differentiators.
Newcomers and less experienced organisations
The Programme Guide explicitly values involving newcomers to the action. For KA210, a consortium that includes at least one organisation applying to Erasmus+ for the first time scores more highly on this sub-criterion. For KA220, including a smaller or less experienced organisation alongside more experienced ones demonstrates commitment to widening participation beyond the established European project circuit.
Task allocation: the 60/40 principle in practice
Maximum-range Partnership scoring requires a task allocation where every partner contributes actively and specifically to the project’s intellectual work — not just attends meetings. Each partner should have at least one major activity or output component they lead or co-lead. Evaluators flag task distributions where the coordinator carries more than 60% of the workload — it suggests the partnership is not genuinely collaborative.
For maximum scoring, describe each partner’s specific task allocation explicitly: “Partner B leads the development of the training curriculum (Work Package 2), contributes to piloting activities in Month 14–16 and coordinates dissemination to the adult education network in their country.”
Coordination and communication mechanisms
Generic descriptions (“we will maintain regular communication”) score at the threshold level. Maximum-range scoring names specific mechanisms: monthly 90-minute progress calls with rotating facilitation, a shared project management space (name the tool), a written decision log, a communication protocol for handling disagreements, a financial reconciliation process, and a mechanism for project steering decisions.
Criterion 4: Impact
KA210: 20 points maximum, minimum 10 | KA220: 25 points maximum, minimum 13
Impact is the most consistently underscored criterion across all applications. It is worth 20–25 points — as much as or more than Partnership — and most applications treat it as an afterthought. This makes it the criterion with the largest average gap between what applications score and what they could score, and therefore the highest-leverage improvement for applications in the 65–75 range.
Integration into regular work
The Programme Guide asks: “concrete and logical steps to integrate project results in the regular work of participating organisations.” Maximum-range scoring describes a specific mechanism for each main output — not a general statement about lasting impact.
The strongest integration plans show a direct line from project output to institutional use after the grant period ends. For each output: who will use it, in what institutional context, reaching how many beneficiaries per year, maintained by which organisation. If a training curriculum will be integrated into the coordinator’s annual staff development programme from Year 2, say so with the specific programme name and approximate annual reach.
Potential for use outside the consortium
The Programme Guide specifically asks about the potential for results to be used “outside the organisations participating in the project during and after the project lifetime, and at local, regional, national or European level.”
This sub-criterion rewards outputs that are genuinely transferable — designed for use by organisations beyond the consortium, in a format that others can access and apply without the consortium’s involvement. A training curriculum published on EPALE under an open licence that any adult education provider in Europe can download and adapt scores more highly than a report distributed to consortium members. The transferability must be designed into the project, not claimed as a general aspiration.
Dissemination: beyond social media
Dissemination plans that describe only social media and website publication score at the threshold level. Maximum-range dissemination plans name specific channels that reach specific professional or policy audiences beyond the consortium:
- EPALE publication (adult and school education) or European Youth Portal (youth) — explicitly named as priorities in the Programme Guide
- A sector-specific professional network, association or conference that will present the outputs to a wider practitioner audience
- A local or regional authority that could adopt or scale the outputs within a policy framework
- A multiplier event — a final dissemination event specifically designed to reach non-consortium practitioners and stakeholders
The multiplier event is a reliable upper-range differentiator. An event specifically designed to present project outputs to an audience beyond the consortium — ideally with named invitees from relevant sectors — demonstrates that dissemination is a strategic design choice rather than an administrative obligation.
Evaluation methodology
Many KA220 applications describe an evaluation framework but fail to include both qualitative and quantitative indicators — losing points on the indicators sub-criterion in Quality of Project Design AND on the evaluation sub-criterion in Impact simultaneously. Maximum-range Impact scoring requires evaluation that is:
- Linked to specific objectives — each objective has at least one indicator
- Both quantitative and qualitative — numbers and quality measures
- Timed — measured at mid-point and end, not just at final report stage
- Used during the project — findings from mid-point evaluation feed into project adaptation, not just the final report
The seven habits of applications that score 80+
Looking across the criteria, certain habits appear consistently in applications that score in the upper range. These are not writing tricks — they are substantive choices about how to design and describe a project.
1. They write the needs analysis before anything else — and they treat it as the foundation of the entire proposal. Every subsequent section connects back to the documented need. Evaluators in all four criteria can trace a logical chain from: need → objective → activity → output → outcome → dissemination.
2. They address inclusion specifically, not generally — naming the group, documenting the barrier they face, designing activities that lower that barrier and measuring the effect. This consistently triggers the “highly relevant” bonus on Relevance and scores upper-range on the inclusion sub-criterion in Quality of Project Design.
3. They use named platforms, not generic technology — eTwinning, EPALE, European Youth Portal, Youthpass — depending on the field. These are explicitly named in the Programme Guide as expected tools. Using them signals alignment with programme expectations.
4. Their objectives are measurable and their indicators match — the same specific change described in an objective appears as the thing an indicator measures. The connection is visible to a reader who reads both sections simultaneously — which is exactly what evaluators do.
5. They name what is new — innovation is demonstrated by comparison, not claimed by assertion. The best innovation arguments say: “existing approaches X and Y address this problem but not in contexts Z; this project adapts Y for Z by doing A, B and C.”
6. Their sustainability plans are output-specific — not “the project will have lasting impact” but one or two sentences per output describing who uses it, where and at what scale after the grant ends.
7. They read the award criteria as a checklist before submitting — they go through every sub-criterion in the Programme Guide and verify that their application addresses it explicitly. Not as an afterthought, but as part of the final quality check.
Want an Evaluator-Level Review of Your Application?
GrowthProjects.eu reviews Erasmus+ applications against the full award criteria and identifies the specific sections and sub-criteria where points are being left on the table. Available for KA210 and KA220 applications before submission.
Free initial consultation · March 2026 deadline support available
A scoring self-assessment for your application
Before submitting, run through this self-assessment. For each item, ask: does my application address this specifically and completely, or partially and generically?
Relevance — upper range self-check
- ☐ Needs analysis names a specific target group (not a general sector) with specific documented evidence
- ☐ Minimum 3 external sources cited, at least one national-level source per partner country
- ☐ Gap analysis explains why existing solutions do not address this specific need
- ☐ Inclusion and diversity priority is central to the project design — not mentioned in a separate paragraph
- ☐ National Agency’s European priorities in the national context for this call have been checked and addressed
- ☐ EU added value is argued specifically — explains why these results require transnational cooperation
- ☐ Innovation claim is substantiated by comparison to what currently exists (KA220)
- ☐ Partner relevance is explained for each organisation — why this specific partner for this specific project
Quality of Project Design — upper range self-check
- ☐ Each objective includes action verb + specific output + target group + timeline
- ☐ Work plan has three phases: preparation, implementation, results sharing — all present
- ☐ Budget matches activities — no activities without budget, no budget without activities
- ☐ Quality control mechanism is described — who reviews, when, against what
- ☐ Named digital tool relevant to the field (eTwinning, EPALE, Youth Portal) used in a specific project phase
- ☐ Both qualitative and quantitative indicators included, linked to specific objectives
- ☐ Green travel approach described for trips under 500km
- ☐ Inclusion measures in activity design are specific — adapted content, support measures, accessible venues
Partnership — upper range self-check
- ☐ Each partner’s specific contribution is named — not their general profile but their project-specific role
- ☐ Partners bring different expertise, target group access or national contexts — complementarity is explicit
- ☐ Task allocation is balanced — coordinator carries no more than 60% of the total workload
- ☐ At least one partner is a grassroots organisation (KA220) or a first-time applicant (KA210)
- ☐ Coordination mechanisms are named specifically — tool, frequency, purpose, decision protocol
Impact — upper range self-check
- ☐ Each main output has a specific sustainability statement — who uses it post-project, where, at what scale
- ☐ Dissemination names specific channels beyond social media — EPALE, sector networks, multiplier event
- ☐ A multiplier event is planned — a dissemination event for non-consortium practitioners
- ☐ Outputs are designed for transferability — open licence, accessible format, not consortium-only use
- ☐ Evaluation is timed — mid-point and final — and findings inform project adaptation, not just the report
Frequently asked questions
Is it possible to score 90+ on a KA210 or KA220 application?
Yes. Scores in the 88–95 range are awarded to applications that address every sub-criterion specifically and completely, with strong evidence, a genuine inclusion dimension and a convincingly argued EU added value. These applications are rare — typically 5–10% of funded applications in any call. They share one consistent characteristic: every section was written against the award criteria as a specification, not as a narrative description of the project idea.
Which criterion has the most room for improvement in a typical application?
Impact — by a significant margin. Most applications score 55–65% on Impact while scoring 70–75% on Relevance and Quality of Project Design. The primary reason is that Impact is written last, quickly, without the same attention given to earlier sections. Three targeted improvements — a specific sustainability plan per output, a named multiplier event, and both qualitative and quantitative indicators — can improve Impact scores by 6–10 points in most applications.
Does using eTwinning or EPALE genuinely affect the score?
Yes — it is explicitly a sub-criterion in Quality of Project Design. The Programme Guide states: “If Erasmus+ online platforms and tools are available in the field(s) of the participating organisations: the extent to which the project makes use of them.” Not using a named platform in a field where one exists (eTwinning for schools, EPALE for adult education) leaves points on the table. The platform must be used in a specific, described way — not just mentioned.
How much does the “highly relevant” inclusion bonus actually affect the score?
The Programme Guide does not assign a specific point value to the “highly relevant” designation — it instructs evaluators to score the Relevance criterion higher for proposals that genuinely address inclusion and diversity. In practice this typically means a 3–6 point difference on the Relevance criterion between applications that mention inclusion and applications that build their entire project design around a specific inclusion group. Given that Relevance is the tiebreaker in ex-aequo situations, that difference can determine whether an application is funded.
Want your application reviewed against the full award criteria?
GrowthProjects.eu provides evaluator-level application reviews for KA210 and KA220 — assessing each section against the Programme Guide award criteria and identifying the specific sub-criteria where points are being left on the table. Available as a pre-submission review or as part of full proposal development.
All award criteria, sub-criteria and scoring language cited in this article are extracted directly from the official Erasmus+ Programme Guide 2026 (Version 1, published 12 November 2025), pages 240–242 (KA220 award criteria) and pages 248–249 (KA210 award criteria). All sub-criteria are quoted verbatim or closely paraphrased from the Programme Guide. GrowthProjects.eu is an independent consultancy and is not affiliated with any National Agency, the European Commission or EACEA.
