Loading…
Strategic Analysis
The ERC Advanced Grant (AdG) supports outstanding, exceptional research leaders of any nationality and age who wish to pursue ground-breaking, high-risk projects in Europe. Applicants must demonstrate a track-record of significant research achievements over the last 10 years, ahead of their peers.
No SDG topics identified for this call.
No expected impacts identified for this destination.
Open Science (Plan S compliant)
highEthics (civil applications + EU Charter)
highGender Equality Plan (GEP)
mediumResearch Integrity (ALLEA Code 2023)
mediumSpecific requirements
PI track record
PI must demonstrate significant research achievements over the last 10 years (outstanding/exceptional research leader). No formal eligibility window post-PhD (unlike StG/CoG).
Working time commitment
PI must commit ≥30% of working time on the ERC project + spend ≥50% of working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country during the grant.
Single Host Institution beneficiary + affiliated entities optional
Only 1 legal entity is the beneficiary (Host Institution, established in EU MS or Associated Country, public/private/for-profit/not-for-profit). N affiliated entities (HE MGA sense, e.g. ARMINES for PSL) may be added to the project space to map the PI's extended team; they are not beneficiaries of the grant but appear in the partners list for project structuring.
Resubmission restriction (Score B)
PIs who scored B at Step 1 or Step 2 of a previous ERC main grant call (per WP 2026 §1.4 table) are NOT eligible for AdG 2026.
One active ERC frontier grant at a time
PI cannot hold more than one active ERC StG/CoG/AdG/SyG/Plus simultaneously.
No multi-PI
Single-PI scheme. For multi-PI frontier projects use the ERC Synergy Grant.
Official sources: ERC Work Programme 2026 (§1.4 Admissibility, Eligibility, Resubmission Restrictions) — ERC Rules of Submission and Evaluation — Information for Applicants AdG 2026.
Single submission deadline. Proposals submitted via the EU Funding & Tenders Portal Submission System (electronic).
| Step | Reviewers | Documents reviewed | Possible outcomes | Result communicated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 (panel-only remote + panel meeting) | Panel Members + Panel Chair (≥3 individual reviews per proposal) | Part B1 only (Cover page + Extended Synopsis + CV/Track Record) | Score A = fully meets excellence → passed to Step 2. Score B = not recommended → rejected. | Approx. 5 months after deadline. |
| Step 2 (panel + external Remote Referees + panel meeting; possibly with interview at Brussels) | Panel Members + external Remote Referees (specialists) | Part B1 + Part B2 (Full Proposal) + Funding ID + Budget | A-invited (recommended for funding within budget), A-not-invited (excellence but above budget cut-off), B (not recommended), C (well below quality threshold). | Approx. 7 months after deadline. |
Grant agreement preparation starts immediately after Step 2 results. Project start: 1–6 months after approval (longer if ethical clarifications needed; up to 12 months exceptionally). Grant Agreement signature target: 16 November 2027 (per WP 2026).
Official source: ERC Guide for Peer Reviewers 2026 (StG/CoG — AdG version forthcoming). The AdG Guide for Peer Reviewers may differ slightly; check the F&T portal for the AdG-specific version.
Applied to the proposal as a whole, examining two dimensions:
The detailed sub-elements are described in the applicable ERC Work Programme (Section 1.6) and operationalised in the Guide for Peer Reviewers (Annex 1 evaluation questions).
Funding model: Actual costs (NOT lump-sum). Indirect costs flat-rate 25% on direct costs (excl. subcontracting + internally invoiced).
Maximum grant: EUR 2 500 000 for 5 years. Additional funding above ceiling (up to EUR 1 000 000) may be requested only for: (a) start-up costs (PI moving to EU/AC), (b) major equipment, (c) access to large facilities, (d) other major experimental/fieldwork costs. Each request must be justified.
Pre-financing: typically ~50% at grant start.
Audit certificates: required if cumulative EU contribution to a beneficiary ≥ EUR 430 000.
Source: AdG Information for Applicants 2026 §4.4. Contact for cost eligibility questions: ERC-2026-ADG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu.
The PI may include a team (postdocs, PhD students, technicians, senior collaborators) — these are NOT formal co-applicants. Team members may be hosted at the same or different institutions, but only the Host Institution is a beneficiary of the grant.
For multi-PI collaborative frontier projects, see the ERC Synergy Grant (2-4 PIs, up to 4 distinct host institutions). For collaboration on existing ERC results' commercialisation, see ERC Proof of Concept.
No imposed project backbone. The PI defines work packages, milestones, deliverables, and risk management freely in Part B2 Section b (Methodology).
Mandatory PI working time commitments (verified in Part A & Host Institution Commitment Letter):
Comparison with sister schemes: StG ≥50%/≥50%, CoG ≥40%/≥50%, SyG ≥30%/≥50% per PI.
ERC follows the standard Horizon Europe Model Grant Agreement (MGA) provisions on IPR:
Ethics review is integral to the evaluation process.
Mandatory commitments:
Multi-actor approach: NOT required. ERC is a single-PI scheme; the team is the PI's research group. Non-academic stakeholders may be involved as collaborators if scientifically justified.
Interdisciplinarity: NOT required but welcomed. Proposals that cross panel boundaries should use a Secondary Panel and justify the cross-disciplinary nature (max 1000 chars in Cover Page). Panel Members will explicitly assess whether the proposal's scope is genuinely interdisciplinary.
Transdisciplinarity: NOT required.
SSH integration: NOT required (PE/LS panels) unless the proposal itself is SSH (SH1-SH6 panels).
⚠ ERCEA bulletin — 28 May 2026: A warning message is not correctly displayed in the submission system for Principal Investigators relocating to the EU or an Associated Country from elsewhere to take up their ERC grant. Source: official latestInfos SEDIA. Check the F&T portal for the latest version.
Everything the call asks for, seen from the call's point of view. Each line shows what answers it, and which partner carries it.
This matrix lists everything the call asks for: outcomes, impacts, scope, the requirements buried in the call text, and policy alignment. Sign up free and GrantForge tracks each line against the concept you build.
| Requirement | Covered by | Carried | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope activities | |||
| No scope activities in this call. | |||
| Expected outcomes | |||
| No expected outcomes in this call. | |||
| Other requirements | |||
| No other requirements in this call. | |||
| Expected impacts | |||
| No expected impacts in this call. | |||
| Underlying policies | |||
| POL1Open Science (Plan S compliant)All peer-reviewed publications must be open access with permissive license. Research data must follow FAIR principles with justified opt-outs allowed. | · | · | Sign up to track |
| POL2Ethics (civil applications + EU Charter)Civil applications only. Compliance with EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ethics Self-Assessment required if any of the 9 ethics issue categories triggered. | · | · | Sign up to track |
The binding rules of this call. Items marked auto are verified by GrantForge from the call and the template. The others are yours to confirm.
PI track record
PI must demonstrate significant research achievements over the last 10 years (outstanding/exceptional research leader). No formal eligibility window post-PhD (unlike StG/CoG).
Working time commitment
PI must commit ≥30% of working time on the ERC project + spend ≥50% of working time in an EU Member State or Associated Country during the grant.
Single Host Institution beneficiary + affiliated entities optional
Only 1 legal entity is the beneficiary (Host Institution, established in EU MS or Associated Country, public/private/for-profit/not-for-profit). N affiliated entities (HE MGA sense, e.g. ARMINES for PSL) may be added to the project space to map the PI's extended team; they are not beneficiaries of the grant but appear in the partners list for project structuring.
Resubmission restriction (Score B)
PIs who scored B at Step 1 or Step 2 of a previous ERC main grant call (per WP 2026 §1.4 table) are NOT eligible for AdG 2026.
One active ERC frontier grant at a time
PI cannot hold more than one active ERC StG/CoG/AdG/SyG/Plus simultaneously.
No multi-PI
Single-PI scheme. For multi-PI frontier projects use the ERC Synergy Grant.
The call requires you to pick or distribute several structuring elements before submission. These are locked at proposal creation time and drive the project backbone. Read-only here.
erc-primary-panel
PE1 — Mathematics
PE2 — Fundamental Constituents of Matter
PE3 — Condensed Matter Physics
PE4 — Physical and Analytical Chemical Sciences
PE5 — Synthetic Chemistry and Materials
PE6 — Computer Science and Informatics
PE7 — Systems and Communication Engineering
PE8 — Products and Processes Engineering
PE9 — Universe Sciences
PE10 — Earth System Science
PE11 — Materials Engineering
LS1 — Molecules of Life: Biological Mechanisms, Structures and Functions
LS2 — Integrative Biology: From Genes and Genomes to Systems
LS3 — Cell Biology, Development, Stem Cells and Regeneration
LS4 — Physiology in Health, Disease and Ageing
LS5 — Neuroscience and Disorders of the Nervous System
LS6 — Immunity, Infection and Immunotherapy
LS7 — Diagnostic Tools, Therapies and Public Health
LS8 — Environmental Biology, Ecology and Evolution
LS9 — Biotechnology and Biosystems Engineering
SH1 — Individuals, Markets and Organisations
SH2 — Institutions, Governance and Legal Systems
SH3 — The Social World and Its Diversity
SH4 — The Human Mind and Its Complexity
SH5 — Texts and Concepts
SH6 — The Study of the Human Past
erc-secondary-panel
7 key insights you must internalise before writing. Each is grounded in the call text and tells you what evaluators will actually look for. Share these with your consortium before drafting.
The Extended Synopsis (Part B1 5p) is what at least one or two non-specialist Panel Members will read first to decide whether the proposal passes to Step 2. The most successful ERC proposals open by framing a single, sharp, transformative scientific question, then justify why answering it is feasible now with this PI's expertise. CV details, while critical, are in Section b.
Source: Guide for Peer Reviewers §2.1 + Hebrew University ERC Proposal Structure guide
Panel Members at Step 1 may not be specialists in your sub-field — typically one or two panel members are assigned per proposal. The Extended Synopsis must therefore communicate ground-breaking nature and feasibility to a smart but non-specialist audience. Technical depth comes at Step 2 (Part B2) where external Remote Referees with deep field expertise join the review.
Source: Hebrew University ERC Evaluation Process summary + Guide for Peer Reviewers §1.2
The Track Record section (Part B1 Section b, 4 pages) is assessed with a 5-option qualitative scale: Outstanding / Excellent / Very Good / Good / Non-competitive. Up to 10 research outputs of any type — publications, datasets, software, patents, start-ups, contributions to the research community — are weighted by their significance to YOUR specific project, not by raw citation counts. The narrative explaining each output's significance and your role matters more than the list.
Source: Application Form Part B1 Section b template + Guide for Peer Reviewers §2.2
The Appendix "Funding ID" in Part B2 lists all current and ongoing/submitted grant applications with explicit description of scientific overlap. Failure to declare an overlap is a procedural error that can trigger eligibility rejection at any point, including post-award. List even loosely related grants.
Source: Application Form Part B2 Appendix template
Additional funding above the EUR 2.5M ceiling (start-up, equipment, facilities, fieldwork) must be explicitly justified and tied to one of 4 categories. At Step 2 the panel can recommend grant reductions (case by case, never across the board) if items are not fully justified. Pre-empt this: every cost line in the budget narrative must reference a specific work plan need.
Source: Application Form Part A Section 3 Budget narratives + Guide for Peer Reviewers §1.2 budget review
The ERC publishes panel composition annually on its website (one list per scheme + panel + year). For your selected primary panel, identify the ~18 likely Panel Members for the upcoming call (those marked as serving the year corresponding to your submission). Map each member's recent work, sub-field, methodology preferences, and stated positions on adjacent topics. This shapes how you frame state-of-the-art citations, methodology choices, and the ground-breaking narrative — your proposal must speak the panel's collective scientific language without pandering. GrantForge will index this for you (reviewer-archetype agents, in pipeline).
Source: ERC website public panel composition (annual)
ERC excellence hinges on genuine novelty. Panels recognise topics that have been repeatedly funded — your "ground-breaking" framing collapses if 3 ERC AdG/CoG/StG already addressed adjacent questions in the last 5-7 years. Before writing, search GrantForge's Awarded Projects index (123k+ EU-funded projects with deliverables, publications, abstracts) for your scientific sub-topic + neighbouring sub-fields. Use the findings two ways: (a) explicitly position your work against the closest funded projects in the Extended Synopsis (panels reward "honest delta" framing, punish blind spots), (b) detect crowded sub-topics where another angle or method would land better.
Source: Discovery insight (Alice, UBX) ; GrantForge Awarded Projects index (CORDIS + Deep Research)
Fully managed by GrantForge
Click Create proposal above to start writing this form inside GrantForge. The structure below is what we generate for you.
Embedded in Part A Section 3 — no separate budget template Part C. Costs are listed per cost category in the online form (eligible categories: Personnel; Subcontracting; Travel & subsistence; Equipment; Consumables/fieldwork/animal; Publications/dissemination; Other direct; Internally invoiced; Indirect at flat 25%).
An additional Equipment Table (Excel) must be uploaded if equipment depreciation is claimed: one row per equipment item with purchase cost / depreciation time / % usage for grant / use months. The total Column G must match the Equipment line in the budget table (Part A C.2).
Canonical EU Funding & Tenders Portal page for this call.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/ERC-2026-ADG
Institutional / marketing website of the parent programme.
https://erc.europa.eu/apply-grant/advanced-grant
Where you submit your proposal (F6S, opencalls.fund, EPSS, MS Forms…).
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/proposal-submission
Official documents pack (applicant guide, templates, annexes).
https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2025-07/ERC_work_programme_2026.pdf
Email of the programme office for questions.
mailto:ERC-2026-ADG-APPLICANTS@ec.europa.eu