Around seven in ten Horizon Europe proposals score above the threshold. Fewer than two in ten are funded. Inside a single call, success by topic runs from under 2 per cent to 40, and preparation is never paid from the grant: it comes out of your own budget whatever happens.
Ten Horizon Europe proposals
- funded (under 2 in 10)
- good enough, and still unpaid
- below the threshold
So the expensive mistake is not a weak proposal. It is a good one aimed at the wrong topic, and by the time one is being written that choice has already been made: which call, which consortium, which role. Those choices are usually taken with a search box and a mailing list, by people who already have a full job.
SNM writes proposals and manages funded projects. This is the work that comes before both.
What you receive
What you publish on
A profile of what your institution publishes on, read from public publication records at institution level.
Calls ranked against it
28 funders' open and forthcoming calls, ranked against it, with their own applicant rules named where they publish them.
Your European track record
Your European track record as the Commission records it: how many projects, in which roles, and how many were funded places rather than unpaid partnerships.
Who you already work with
The institutions you have already worked with, by shared project count.
A written judgement
Which calls to pursue, which to decline, why, and what to prepare before each one opens.
Two reviews a year
As calls open and close.
How many calls you can carry is your number, not ours: we ask, because a university with an EU office and a department without one are not solving the same problem.
The first two are the free register's own output. The next two come from the Commission's records, and every figure can be checked against its source. The judgement is the work. Horizon Europe states its conditions in each topic's own text rather than in a programme rule, so our register does not flag them reliably: those are read by hand for the calls worth pursuing.
What it does not do
- It does not promise funding.
- It does not decide eligibility. It names the rule the funder published, and what you still have to confirm with them.
- It does not name a partner to add. It names the theme in a call that nobody in your group covers.
- It reads published output, in which companies, end-user organisations and patient groups barely appear: it can tell you a consortium is missing one, not find you one.
Who it is for
Institutions with real research output and no dedicated pre-award office: mid-sized universities outside the Horizon Europe core, university hospitals and research foundations, research-performing companies, technology centres, and research councils that are eligible for European funding and barely use it.
Not for a large university with an established EU office.
What it costs
If you go on to engage SNM to write a proposal within twelve months, the fee is credited in full against that work. It is credited against any writing engagement, not only the calls named in the strategy, so that what we recommend is never shaped by what we would be paid to write.
Where the figures come from
Open calls come from Funding Radar, the free register SNM runs at fundingradar.eu (opens in a new tab). Research profiles come from OpenAlex, which is public and CC0. Track records and past consortia come from CORDIS, the Commission's own record of what it has funded.
On what a ranking is worth in the first place: Grant Funding in the Age of AI works out how much ranking a shortlist gains over drawing from it, and finds the gain smaller than the ranking's own precision suggests. That is the case for choosing a few calls deliberately rather than treating a long list of matches as a queue.
The register stays free and ungated. Begin there: if it answers your question, you do not need us.