Ruthless Evaluator
Stress-test your proposal. No mercy, just metrics.
Get started
FeaturesHow it worksSecurityFAQPricingBlogContact
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 startedSee how it works

Less reassurance. More signal.

Zero Data Retention AI processingNo model trainingAutomatic proposal draft deletionAccount-isolated access
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
Follow a Priority Action Plan
See what to change first, why it matters and which concrete revision can move the proposal forward.
01
IMPLEMENTATION
Resource logic lacks evidence
Recommended revision: Link key costs to work packages and proof.
High
02
IMPLEMENTATION
Delivery logic is not explicit
Recommended revision: Show ownership, dependencies and milestones.
High
03
IMPACT
Exploitation pathway is too implicit
Recommended revision: Connect claims to evidence and uptake.
Medium
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
Ruthless Intelligence

Learn from every proposal you evaluate.

Professional and Institutional plans turn evaluation history into portfolio analysis, recurring proposal quality patterns and focused development priorities.

ResearcherTeam or unitProgramme cohortCustom selection

See recurring proposal quality patterns

Compare portfolio statistics, repeatable strengths, growth areas and quality trajectory across the researcher, team, programme cohort or selection you choose.

Portfolio analysis
18 projects
Median overall
82.4
Ready now
7 / 18
With history
11
Strongest pattern
Evidence & justification
72%
Main growth area
Implementation logic
41%
Quality trajectory
Improving
7 improved · 2 stable · 1 declined
Proposal quality is moving forward while implementation logic remains the clearest recurring development priority.

Turn evidence into a focused development plan

Use ranked development priorities and a focused roadmap to turn recurring evidence into practical learning actions for the next proposals.

Saved analysis
Evidence-backed
Development priorities
01
Evidence architecture
Strengthen proof behind the highest-impact claims.
02
Implementation clarity
Make ownership, dependencies and milestones explicit.
03
Impact credibility
Connect outcomes to uptake and supporting evidence.
Focused roadmap
One priority per week
Week 1
Evidence structure
Week 2
Implementation clarity
Week 3
Impact proof
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 startedWatch Ruthless Evaluator guides
Pre-submission quality gate

How your proposal was written does not change how it will be evaluated.

AI-assisted, consultant-prepared or written in-house: use the people and tools that help you build the strongest draft, then add a separate quality-control layer before submission.

01AI assistants · agentic workflows

AI-assisted

AI assistants and agentic workflows can accelerate drafting, but fluent output still needs codified programme logic, criterion coverage and evidence-based review across the final proposal.

02External proposal expertise

Consultant-prepared

External expertise can strengthen a proposal, but preparation can carry embedded assumptions. A separate final challenge tests the final proposal as the evaluator will actually read it against the criteria.

03Internal proposal team

Written in-house

Deep project knowledge is a strength, but teams that do not work with EU funding every day can miss programme-specific nuances and evaluation expectations that materially affect the quality of the final proposal.

Final proposal
Ruthless Evaluator

Pre-submission quality gate

Stress-test the final draft against the applicable programme logic before submission.

What gets challenged
CriteriaEvidenceConsistencyTopic fitImplementation logicClaim support
Applicable evaluation framework

Different drafting routes. The same applicable evaluation framework.

Ruthless does not replace the team, the consultant or the drafting tool. It helps identify contradictions, unsupported claims, alignment weaknesses and avoidable gaps before submission.

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.
Map of Europe with European Commission, EIC, ERC, Eurostars and LIFE programme coverage
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.

01
Internal QA

Pre-award & research support offices

Add a structured review layer before sign-off, then use Intelligence to learn across researchers, teams or selected proposal cohorts.

Consistent QA + portfolio insight
02
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
03
Scientific case

Researchers & PIs

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

Stronger evaluator-facing logic
04
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

Confidential proposals deserve deliberate protection

Ruthless combines Zero Data Retention AI processing with transient draft handling, controlled access and a security-gated development lifecycle.

Zero Data Retention AI processing
When Ruthless sends proposal text to the LLM for evaluation, our Zero Data Retention agreement means the provider does not retain that proposal content after that request is processed under ZDR.
  • No proposal content retained by the LLM provider after ZDR processing
  • Separate from model-training controls
Automatic draft deletion
Uploaded proposal files exist only for the processing window and are automatically deleted when evaluation completes, is cancelled or fails.
  • Transient upload handling
  • No full proposal file stored in the database
Controlled, isolated access
Evaluation outputs are available only through authenticated accounts and are logically separated by user and project, with no public upload endpoints.
  • Authenticated access
  • Least-privilege administration
Security by design
Automated security checks, vulnerability surveillance, secret scanning, container scanning and controlled staging-to-production releases protect the service lifecycle.
  • Security-gated CI
  • Documented incident response
Explore security architecture
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.

Get startedSee how it works
Ruthless Evaluator evaluation report preview
Cookies

We use essential cookies to make the site work. Optional cookies, such as analytics, are disabled by default. You can accept, reject, or configure your preferences.

See: Privacy Policy