Published: 12 December 2025
Deadline: 21 April 2026
Available budget: 318.6 million EUR (The original budget assigned to topic HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-48 was reduced by 1 million EUR)
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-01: EUR 38000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-04: EUR 64000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-05: EUR 37000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-11: EUR 18500000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-12: EUR 19000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-13: EUR 4000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-14: EUR 28000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-23: EUR 50000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-24: EUR 800000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-31: EUR 43800000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-41: EUR 2000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-44: EUR 2500000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-45: EUR 5000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-46: EUR 2000000
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-48: EUR 4000000
The results of the evaluation for each topic are as follows:
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-01
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-04
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-05
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-11
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-12
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)
137
93
91
32
28
Number of inadmissible proposals
0
1
1
0
0
Number of ineligible proposals
33
0
2
0
3
Number of above-threshold proposals
93
81
69
27
15
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals
628991319.2 €
581747543.4 €
427743861.2 €
168325573.2 €
100495533.8 €
Number of proposals retained for funding
5
8
6
3
3
Number of proposals in the reserve list
2
3
2
1
1
Funding threshold[1]
14.5
14.5
14.5
13.5
14.0
Ranking distribution
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14
18
18
17
2
3
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13
25
12
20
4
3
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10
50
51
32
21
9
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-13
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-14
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-23
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-24
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-31
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)
3
33
46
12
73
Number of inadmissible proposals
0
0
0
2
0
Number of ineligible proposals
1
2
0
0
0
Number of above-threshold proposals
1
27
34
7
62
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals
3999731.54 €
196467308.5 €
390808478 €
5582984.83 €
417031164.8 €
Number of proposals retained for funding
1
4
4
1
6
Number of proposals in the reserve list
0
1
1
1
2
Funding threshold[1]
13.5
14.0
14.5
15.0
14.5
Ranking distribution
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14
0
4
7
1
16
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13
1
5
4
2
14
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10
0
18
23
4
32
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-41
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-44
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-45
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-46
HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-48
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls)
32
5
20
9
33
Number of inadmissible proposals
0
0
2
1
0
Number of ineligible proposals
0
0
1
0
3
Number of above-threshold proposals
26
4
14
8
25
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals
25979207.69 €
9954888.28 €
33221155.4 €
15990611.3 €
4883754.27 €
Number of proposals retained for funding
1
2
1
1
20
Number of proposals in the reserve list
1
1
1
1
4
Funding threshold[1]
14.5
14.0
13.5
15.0
10.5
Ranking distribution
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14
3
1
0
3
7
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13
3
0
4
1
6
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 10
20
3
10
4
12
Summary of observer report:
For Topics HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-01, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-04, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-11, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-12, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-13, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-44, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-45, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-46.
The observed evaluation process was carried out remotely. The selected evaluators represented a good mix of backgrounds, sectors and expertise to fully assess the quality of the proposals assigned to them. The design of the process, including multi-step procedures, the involvement of knowledgeable evaluators and detailed discussions on the evaluated proposals, ensured that the entire process was impartial and its outcome fair. All eligible proposals were evaluated against the same set of criteria, fully respecting the context of the call and topic requirements. They were subject to the same thorough consideration regarding their quality. The evaluation criteria and scoring system were consistently applied across topics. The proposals were subject to individual evaluations carried out independently by 3 or 4 experts (depending on the topic and type of action). This evaluation step was followed by subsequent steps, including joint consensus discussions on individual proposals and - for the topics where different sets of evaluators were assessing different proposals - cross-reading and panel review. The evaluation process was conducted in full compliance with the applicable rules and procedures. It was generally efficient and transparent. Conflicts of interest were carefully managed, starting from the phase of selection of experts through the entire process. No unmanaged conflict of interest was observed or brought to the attention of the observer. The quality of the observed evaluation was good.
For Topics HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-05, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-14, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-23, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-24, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-31, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-41, HORIZON-CL4-2026-01-MAT-PROD-48
The independent observers were tasked by the EC services to follow the evaluation processes regarding their conduct, transparency, and fairness, and to provide recommendations for process improvement. According to the observed Consensus meetings (CMs) and Panel meetings with some cross reading activities, the evaluation procedures were carried with transparency, efficiency, fairness, consistency, impartiality with homogenous criteria in compliance with the applicable evaluation rules for each stage of the selection exercise (IER, CR, Quality Check, Cross-reading, Panel ranking): the evaluation process was carried out in full accordance with the Horizon Europe documents on proposal evaluation. The observed calls with 7 topics received 320 proposals, where 3 were inadmissible, 7 ineligible. The number of proposals per topic varied from 12 to 91. These proposals were evaluated by 185 experts that represented 91% of Member States, with a good gender balance (45% female; 55% male). The evaluation used the IT system SEP, designed for the evaluation procedures. Apart from the proposals, many supporting documents were made available in the system to help the experts’ work. There were some technical problems with SEP but promptly resolved. So, the meetings were well managed and no consequences were evidenced in the evaluation procedures. Webex tool was used for the consensus meeting, and it worked very well permitting a good interaction level for the experts and rapporteur during their discussion about each evaluated proposal. In this way all the procedures to select the best proposal were very adequate to define the final ranking in order to select the best projects to be financed according to the calls’ indications.
---
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.
[1] Proposals with the same score were ranked according to the priority order procedure set out in the General Annexes to the Work Programme or specific arrangements in the specific call/topic conditions. To determine the ranking for ‘Innovation actions’, the score for ‘Impact’ is given a weight of 1.5.
