ERC grants: Starting, Consolidator, Advanced and Synergy

The European Research Council funds individual researchers on scientific excellence alone. Its main schemes — Starting, Consolidator, Advanced and Synergy — differ mainly by how long ago you finished your PhD, not by research field.

This is an independent explainer. The ERC’s own site and the current ERC Work Programme are authoritative; where this page and they differ, they are right.

What makes the ERC unusual

Most EU funding is directed: a work programme names a challenge, and consortia propose solutions. The ERC does the opposite. You propose the question. There are no thematic priorities, no required partners, and no obligation to demonstrate industrial relevance or societal impact.

There is also only one evaluation criterion: excellence — of the research and of the researcher. Not value for money, not consortium balance, not alignment with policy. That makes the ERC conceptually simpler than the rest of Horizon Europe and, in practice, more competitive.

Grants are held by a principal investigator at a host institution. The host provides the environment and administers the money; the PI directs the science and can normally take the grant to another eligible host.

The four schemes

Starting Grant — for researchers early after their PhD, establishing independence and a first team.

Consolidator Grant — for researchers consolidating an independent team and a distinctive line of work.

Advanced Grant — for established leaders with a significant track record over the preceding decade. No upper career limit.

Synergy Grant — structurally different. It funds a small group of principal investigators, usually two to four, tackling a problem that none of them could address alone. The burden is showing genuine synergy rather than a coalition of adjacent projects, and reviewers are unforgiving about the difference.

There is also Proof of Concept, open only to existing or recent ERC grant holders, funding work to explore the commercial or societal potential of results from an ERC project. It is small, short, and not a route in — you must already hold an ERC grant.

Eligibility is measured in years since PhD

For Starting, Consolidator and Advanced, the scheme you are eligible for is decided by the time between your PhD award date and the call deadline. This is the single most important thing to get right, because applying to the wrong scheme is an administrative rejection regardless of the science.

The windows are set in each year’s ERC Work Programme. They have been stable but they are defined there, not by convention, so read the current version.

Extensions to the window are available for documented career breaks — parental leave, long-term illness, national service, clinical training among them — and they are applied on evidence rather than assertion. If you have any reason to think you qualify, work it out before you choose a scheme, not after.

Deadlines

The ERC runs on an annual cycle: each scheme opens once a year, with dates fixed in the Work Programme published in advance.

We deliberately do not reproduce a deadline table here. Dates shift between editions, and a stale date on a third-party page is worse than no date — people plan against them. Get the current deadlines from the ERC Work Programme or the topic page on the Funding & Tenders Portal, both of which are updated at source.

What is worth internalising is not the date but the lead time. An ERC proposal is a substantial document requiring a coherent five-year research vision, and the host institution’s research office usually wants it weeks before the official deadline for internal checks. Working back from the submission date rather than forward from the announcement is the whole discipline.

How evaluation works

Evaluation is in two steps for the main schemes.

Step 1 — panel members review the extended synopsis and your CV and track record. Most proposals are eliminated here, and it is decided substantially on whether the idea is compelling and whether you look capable of delivering it.

Step 2 — the full proposal goes to panel members and external referees, and shortlisted applicants are interviewed. The interview is short, the panel is broad rather than specialist, and the common failure is explaining the work at the wrong level for the room.

Panels are organised by domain — physical sciences and engineering, life sciences, social sciences and humanities — and subdivided. Choosing your panel is a real strategic decision: the same proposal can read as bold in one panel and unfocused in another.

What reviewers reward

The ERC asks for high-risk, high-gain research, and means it. A proposal that will obviously succeed is, by that measure, not ambitious enough. Reviewers look for a question worth answering, an approach that could plausibly answer it, and evidence that this particular researcher can do it.

Track record is read as evidence of capability, not as a score. A smaller number of genuinely significant contributions reads better than a long list.

If you do not get it

Resubmission is normal. Restrictions can apply after certain outcomes — a low grade in one edition may bar you from applying for a subsequent one — and those rules are in the Work Programme. Check them before deciding when to try again, because they change the calculus about which year to target.

Keeping track of when each scheme opens, across the schemes you are eligible for, is a small but real recurring job. We cover the ways to handle that — including the portal’s own free notifications, which for a researcher tracking a single scheme are usually enough.

First report free →

By Haroon Latif · Last reviewed: 2026-08-12