Team size, 2021 to 2026

ISEF Solo vs Team Projects: solo wins more on average, but not in every category

ISEF solo vs team projects: solo entries won grand awards at 28.1%, pairs at 21.4%, trios at 26.0%. Four in five ISEF projects are solo; two in three Korean entries are teams.

By CIT Intelligence Architect|Apgujeong, Seoul|Last reviewed 2026-10-11|한국어 페이지

At a glance

  • Solo 28.1% · pair 21.4% · trio 26.0% (grand rate, 2021 to 2026)
  • 80% of finalists are solo; 68% of Korean finalists are teams
  • The team penalty varies by category: BME −9.4 pts, Earth & Env none
  • Korea solo 19.8% vs Korea team 14.0%
  • In a team, state each member's role in the abstract
Grand-award rate by team size (2021 to 2026)
28.1%SoloSolo
21.4%PairPair
26.0%TrioTrio

Solo 6,603 · pair 1,176 · trio 419 projects

Team size per 100 finalists (2021 to 2026)
80.5%14.3%
Solo 80.5%Pair 14.3%Trio 5.2%
28.1%
solo projects (6,603)
21.4%
pairs (1,176)
26.0%
trios (419)
79%
share of all ISEF projects that are solo
68.4%
share of Korean entries that are teams
19.8% vs 14.0%
Korean solo vs Korean team grand rate

Primary AI education and portfolio routes

International-school coursework and EC rules differ from science and gifted-school rules. Start with the international-school route, then check the gifted-school route separately.

In 2021 to 2026 solo projects won grand awards at 28.1% and team projects at 22.6% (p<0.001). Pairs are the weakest format at 21.4%; trios recover to 26.0%. The team penalty is not universal. It concentrates in wet-lab and environment categories: Energy: Sustainable Materials and Design (solo ahead by 15.4 points), Environmental Engineering (13.2), Microbiology (12.9), Materials Science (11.3). In Robotics, Embedded Systems, Animal Sciences and Chemistry, teams did slightly better than solo entrants.

Solo minus team, by category

Positive numbers mean solo projects won more often than teams. Only categories with p below 0.05 show a reliable difference. In categories where hardware is built together (Embedded Systems, Robotics) and in Animal Sciences, Chemistry and Cellular and Molecular Biology, teams edged ahead, though not significantly.

Solo versus team grand-award rate by category
Solo grand rateTeam grand rate
  1. Energy: Sustainable Materials and Design30.5%15.1%
  2. Environmental Engineering30.9%17.7%
  3. Microbiology28.7%15.8%
  4. Materials Science29.8%18.5%
  5. Biomedical and Health Sciences28.6%17.9%
  6. Systems Software29.4%19.3%
  7. Biomedical Engineering29.3%19.8%
  8. Biochemistry27.8%18.6%
  9. Behavioral and Social Sciences28.0%20.5%
  10. Translational Medical Science28.1%21.3%
  11. Engineering Technology: Statics & Dynamics27.5%23.4%
  12. Plant Sciences27.3%23.9%
  13. Mathematics26.9%23.5%
  14. Computational Biology and Bioinformatics27.7%25.0%
  15. Physics and Astronomy27.9%25.3%
  16. Earth and Environmental Sciences27.3%26.0%
  17. Chemistry27.5%28.6%
  18. Robotics and Intelligent Machines26.7%30.3%
  19. Animal Sciences25.8%30.1%
  20. Cellular and Molecular Biology26.1%31.8%
  21. Embedded Systems25.8%32.3%
Show the full table (21 rows)
Solo and team projects by category: counts, grand-award rates, difference and p value (2021 to 2026, categories with 100+ projects)
CategorySolo nSolo grandTeam nTeam grandSolo minus team (pts)p
Energy: Sustainable Materials and Design24330.5%7315.1%+15.40.009
Environmental Engineering36230.9%15817.7%+13.20.002
Microbiology27228.7%5715.8%+12.90.045
Materials Science28229.8%8118.5%+11.30.045
Biomedical and Health Sciences41628.6%6717.9%+10.70.068
Systems Software21429.4%5719.3%+10.10.127
Biomedical Engineering41029.3%12119.8%+9.40.040
Biochemistry18727.8%4318.6%+9.20.215
Behavioral and Social Sciences32928.0%7320.5%+7.40.195
Translational Medical Science39228.1%7521.3%+6.70.229
Engineering Technology: Statics & Dynamics27327.5%6423.4%+4.00.511
Plant Sciences26727.3%6723.9%+3.50.567
Mathematics21226.9%3423.5%+3.40.680
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics40827.7%5625.0%+2.70.671
Physics and Astronomy36927.9%7525.3%+2.60.648
Earth and Environmental Sciences43927.3%9626.0%+1.30.796
Chemistry30227.5%9128.6%-1.10.839
Robotics and Intelligent Machines36326.7%9930.3%-3.60.479
Animal Sciences27925.8%7330.1%-4.30.457
Cellular and Molecular Biology25326.1%2231.8%-5.70.559
Embedded Systems19025.8%6232.3%-6.50.321

Download table data (CSV): team_by_category.csv

Team share and results by country

In some countries the team is the default format. Thailand enters 84% teams and its teams win more than its solo entrants (38.4% vs 15.4%); India, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia show the same pattern. The United States (solo 27.6%, team 21.8%), Japan (27.5% vs 14.9%), Korea (19.8% vs 14.0%), Egypt and Turkey show the opposite. The delegations whose teams succeed tend to enter life-science or hardware projects where roles divide naturally.

Team-project share by country (2014 to 2026)
  1. Vietnam89.0%
  2. Thailand84.1%
  3. Malaysia71.4%
  4. Mexico70.7%
  5. South Korea68.4%
  6. Egypt64.4%
  7. Turkey59.7%
  8. Jordan51.7%
  9. Brazil42.0%
  10. Germany41.0%
  11. Japan39.6%
  12. Russia28.1%
  13. India26.2%
  14. Puerto Rico19.7%
  15. China14.2%
  16. United States11.9%
  17. South Africa10.3%
  18. Australia8.6%
  19. Canada7.2%
  20. Saudi Arabia2.5%
Show the full table (20 rows)
Fair countries: projects, team share, solo and team grand-award rates (2014 to 2026, top 20)
Fair countryProjectsTeam shareSolo grand (95% CI)Team grand (95% CI)
United States of America1101811.9%27.6% (95% CI 27 to 28)21.8% (95% CI 20 to 24)
Puerto Rico35619.7%3.5% (95% CI 2 to 6)7.1% (95% CI 3 to 16)
China34514.2%28.0% (95% CI 23 to 33)22.4% (95% CI 13 to 36)
Saudi Arabia3252.5%34.7% (95% CI 30 to 40)62.5% (95% CI 31 to 86)
South Korea27268.4%19.8% (95% CI 13 to 29)14.0% (95% CI 10 to 20)
Brazil22642.0%20.6% (95% CI 15 to 28)16.8% (95% CI 11 to 26)
India21426.2%29.7% (95% CI 23 to 37)41.1% (95% CI 29 to 54)
Canada1817.2%53.6% (95% CI 46 to 61)61.5% (95% CI 36 to 82)
Japan16939.6%27.5% (95% CI 20 to 37)14.9% (95% CI 8 to 25)
Russian Federation16728.1%14.2% (95% CI 9 to 22)14.9% (95% CI 7 to 28)
Thailand16484.1%15.4% (95% CI 6 to 34)38.4% (95% CI 31 to 47)
Turkey14959.7%23.3% (95% CI 14 to 35)19.1% (95% CI 12 to 28)
Egypt14664.4%25.0% (95% CI 15 to 38)14.9% (95% CI 9 to 23)
Jordan14351.7%5.8% (95% CI 2 to 14)12.2% (95% CI 7 to 22)
Australia1288.6%38.5% (95% CI 30 to 48)36.4% (95% CI 15 to 65)
Germany10041.0%52.5% (95% CI 40 to 65)43.9% (95% CI 30 to 59)
Viet Nam9189.0%30.0% (95% CI 11 to 60)24.7% (95% CI 17 to 35)
Malaysia8471.4%16.7% (95% CI 7 to 36)30.0% (95% CI 20 to 43)
Mexico8270.7%8.3% (95% CI 2 to 26)6.9% (95% CI 3 to 16)
South Africa7810.3%17.1% (95% CI 10 to 28)0.0% (95% CI 0 to 32)

Download table data (CSV): team_by_country.csv

Korea's three-person habit

Of Korea's 294 entries, 98 (33%) are solo, 74 (25%) pairs and 121 (41%) trios; worldwide, 79% are solo. Korean solo projects won at 19.8%, Korean teams at 14.0%. The three-person team entering Systems Software has almost never placed in 13 years. If a team is required, robotics, embedded systems, materials or environmental measurement projects, where roles are visible, are the safer pattern in the data. More on the Korea page.

Team projects per 100 Korean finalists (2014 to 2026)
31.6%68.4%
Korea, solo 31.6%Korea, team 68.4%

All countries: 21.1% teams.

Frequently asked questions

Do team projects do worse at ISEF?
Is a pair or a trio better?
Why are Korean entries so often teams?
What do judges look for in a team?

Data and method

Two public sources. From the Society for Science abstract database (abstracts.societyforscience.org) we compiled every ISEF finalist project from 2014 to 2026: 17,565 projects with title, category, fair country, awards and full abstract. From the isef.net project library we took the award-tier flags for the 8,134 ISEF projects of 2021 to 2026 and joined them to the abstracts by year and booth id. Compiled on 2026-10-11.

A grand award means a First to Fourth Award or Best of Category, roughly the top 27% of each category. A special award is given by a sponsoring organization with its own judges. ISEF 2020 was held without judging and is excluded from every rate. The abstract database carries no 2025 awards and misses most Materials Science grand awards after 2017, so award flags for 2021 to 2026 combine both sources. An AI mention means the title or abstract contains a machine-learning term; it does not mean the project is about AI. All numbers are correlations, and Korean per-category figures rest on 2 to 24 projects, so read them as direction rather than precision.

Sources

The figures on this page are category-level base rates compiled from public ISEF results. They do not predict or promise any student's award, selection or admission. CIT does not guarantee awards, selection or admission.

ISEF data series

ISEF statistics hubAll 17,565 projects, headline numbers and the seriesChoosing a category24 categories: grand, special, team and AI sharesSolo vs teamSolo 28.1%, pairs 21.4%, trios 26.0%, and where it differsAI projectsAI share over time, subtype odds, inside vs outside computingTopic trends70 topics: share change, odds, Korean entriesWinning abstractsTitle patterns, feature lifts, winner vocabularyKorea at ISEFResults by year, qualifying routes, category mix, winner traitsSpecial awards map40 sponsors by category, Korea's awardsReturning and multi-yearReturning 37.8% vs first-time 22.4%Judging criteriaOfficial 100 points mapped to abstract dataBy countryWhat Singapore, Canada and Thailand enter; US state rates

Want to pressure-test a project idea against this data?

Tell us the student's grade, field of interest and target fair. We will map a realistic preparation order against these numbers.

Chat on KakaoTalk Call +82-2-540-2922
Chat