EU funding proposal stress test

Your proposal's toughest test
before you submit

See what can cost points before an evaluator does.Ruthless stress-tests your EU funding proposal against the selected programme, official template and evaluation logic, then surfaces score-limiting weaknesses, readiness blockers and the revisions worth doing first.

Get started See how it works

Less reassurance. More signal.

Ruthless Evaluator interface showing proposal evaluation workflow and results

What you get

See where your proposal can lose points.

Criterion-level evaluation, readiness signals, ranked revisions and version comparison, all tied to the programme you are targeting.

Evaluate against programme-specific criteria

See reviewer-style scores and comments against the selected programme structure, template and evaluation criteria.

Ruthless Evaluator current score and Submission Readiness view showing remaining conditions

Find what is holding the score back

See weak claims, missing evidence, vague justification and readiness blockers alongside the overall evaluation.

Ruthless Evaluator weaknesses view highlighting score-limiting issues by criterion

Know what to fix first

Turn findings into ranked, criterion-linked revisions so you know what matters most and where to intervene.

Ruthless Evaluator recommendations view with criterion-linked actions to strengthen the proposal

Prove the next version is better

Compare evaluation profiles across versions and see what improved, what stalled and what still needs work.

Ruthless Evaluator version comparison radar charts showing proposal improvement across Excellence, Impact and Implementation

From score to decision

Know if the draft is ready and what deserves attention.

Turn the evaluation into two practical decisions: whether the proposal is ready to submit and which revision should come first.

Submission Readiness

A nice score is not the same as being ready

Not another vanity score. See whether the draft is genuinely ready
for submission and which unresolved conditions are still getting
in the way.

Submission Readiness

Nearly ready

2 blockers

Evidence chain still incomplete

Implementation rationale needs one stronger proof point

Priority Action Plan

Spend revision time where it can matter most

Not another wall of feedback. Get a ranked revision queue showing what to fix first, why it matters and what evidence or change can move the proposal forward.

Priority Action Plan

Fix the highest-impact issue first

#01

Close the evidence gap

Why it matters · Next move

#02

Tighten the work-plan logic

What is weak · What to change

#03

Make the impact pathway traceable

Claim · Evidence · Owner

How it works

From draft to a ruthless revision plan in three steps

Watch the real product flow from programme selection to a structured stress test, ranked revision priorities and version comparison.

3 steps, about 8 minutes

Step 1

Select the programme

Lock the right evaluation context so the structure, criteria and programme logic are correct from the start.

Step 2

Run the stress test

Upload the proposal or paste the draft. Ruthless runs the programme-specific evaluation and surfaces the findings.

Step 3

Fix what matters, then compare

Work through readiness blockers and ranked priorities, run the next version and see whether the proposal actually improved.

Get started Watch Ruthless Evaluator guides

Programme coverage

Different programmes. Different rules. One check.

Horizon Europe, ERC, EIC, Eurostars and LIFE do not reward the same things. Ruthless applies the relevant structure, template and evaluation logic for the programme you select.

Horizon Europe

Collaborative R&I proposals shaped by topic scope, expected outcomes, Excellence, Impact and Implementation.

ERC

Starting, Consolidator, Advanced, Synergy, Plus and Proof of Concept, with ERC-specific scientific and panel logic.

EIC Programmes

Pathfinder, Transition, Advanced and Accelerator each test a different mix of maturity, evidence, risk and market logic.

Eurostars

SME-led international R&D proposals checked for innovation, consortium credibility, implementation and commercialisation.

LIFE

Environment and climate proposals tested for policy relevance, impact, technical quality and resource credibility.

Built for high-stakes proposals

For teams with too much at stake for generic feedback

Different roles, same need: a disciplined stress test before the proposal leaves the team.

Internal QA

Pre-award & research support offices

Add a structured review layer before expert panels, internal approvals and deadline pressure converge.

Consistent review before sign-off

Client delivery

Grant consultancies & proposal teams

Run a consistent stress test before final client review and focus senior time on the issues that can still move the case.

Senior time on score-moving issues

Scientific case

Researchers & PIs

Pressure-test scientific ambition, evidence and execution logic without turning the process into another writing exercise.

Stronger evaluator-facing logic

Fundability

Startups & SMEs

Test innovation, market, implementation and financing logic before a funding panel tests it for you.

Sharper market and execution case

Security and confidentiality

Proposal drafts are too valuable for casual handling

Security and confidentiality are explicit: purpose-limited processing, controlled access, automatic draft deletion after processing and GDPR-aligned data handling.

Evaluation-only processing

Your content is processed only to generate the evaluation. It is not used for model training, benchmarking, or any unrelated purpose.

Evaluation-only processing
No training or benchmarking reuse

Automatic draft deletion

Uploaded drafts are stored only for the time needed to run the evaluation, then automatically deleted, even if the run is cancelled or fails.

Automatic deletion after processing
No persistent storage of uploads

Account-isolated access

Evaluations are accessible only to authenticated users and are logically separated by account and project. There are no public file endpoints.

Authenticated access only
No public file links

Your IP stays yours

You retain full ownership and IP rights over submitted content. Stored outputs exclude full drafts and include only short excerpts when needed to justify findings.

Full IP stays with you
Outputs avoid full draft storage

FAQ

Common questions before you evaluate a proposal

Clear answers for teams preparing high-stakes EU funding proposals.

Still have questions?Get in touch

BEFORE SUBMISSION

Stress-test your proposal. Avoid bad surprises

A calm surface. A ruthless evaluation underneath.