Every fact you need to win EU funding is public. Which calls are open and how much money they carry. Who won the last round, and in which consortium. What score a proposal needed to clear evaluation. What the funded projects actually delivered.
Public - and unreadable. The information is scattered across portals, spreadsheets, and tens of thousands of project records. A consultant preparing one bid might check a dozen sources; nobody checks all of them. So the most expensive decisions in EU funding - where to bid, with whom, and whether a draft is good enough - are still made mostly on intuition.
That gap is why we built GrantSignal.
The whole landscape, in one place
GrantSignal continuously gathers the EU funding landscape into a single database and keeps it current. As of August 2026, that means:
- 2,894 live funding calls across 35 EU programmes - Horizon Europe, Erasmus+, Digital Europe, LIFE, the European Defence Fund, and thirty more
- 23,423 funded projects from CORDIS, with the consortia behind them
- 35,168 organisations and the network of who wins with whom
- 21,355 project documents - what winning projects actually produced, not just their abstracts
- Evaluation outcomes and score thresholds, call by call, where the Commission publishes them
None of these facts is secret. What is new is having all of them in one place that understands questions.
From information to decisions
A database is only useful if it changes what you do. GrantSignal is built around the three decisions that decide every bid:
Where to compete. Describe your product or research in your own words and see the calls that fit - with competition levels and historical success rates, not just deadlines. Most failed proposals fail at topic selection, before a single word is written.
Who to team with. Every consortium that has won before is on record. GrantSignal turns that record into partner suggestions: organisations with a track record in your field, and the evidence of what they delivered.
Whether your draft will pass. Independent AI evaluators score proposals the way EU panels do, criterion by criterion, calibrated against real evaluation reports. You learn what a panel would say while there is still time to fix it - not six months after submission.
What this space will be
This is the first article in an ongoing series. We run analyses on the database every week - success patterns across programmes, how evaluation thresholds move, which fields are getting crowded - and some of those findings are worth sharing. When we publish them here, every figure will carry its date and its source.
If you would rather explore the data yourself, the live demo runs on the real database - your calls, your field, today.