Methodology
How we score and verify projects
The open EUROBRIDGE Score methodology: 24 indicators, group weights, a data-confidence measure, verification levels and what a moderator checks.
Methodology version: Score v1.0Version of 13 October 2026
What the Score is
The EUROBRIDGE Score is a 0–100 rating that lets you compare projects under one set of rules. It shows how well a project is prepared and documented; it does not forecast returns.
The Score is built from 24 indicators in five groups. Each indicator is rated 0 to 5 and the groups carry different weights. If information is missing, the indicator gets 0 — so incomplete projects do not look stronger than they are.
What it is
- One scale for comparing project readiness
- Visible gaps: what still needs to be confirmed
- A separate data-confidence measure
What it is not
- Not a credit rating
- Not investment advice or a recommendation
- Not a guarantee of returns or project success
- Not a substitute for your own due diligence
Scale and calculation
- 01
Indicator points: 0–5
0 — no data or an unsatisfactory value; 5 — the best level. The project owner enters the points and a moderator reviews them before publication.
- 02
Group weights
Indicator points in a group are summed and scaled to the group’s weight. The five weights add up to 100.
- 03
Missing data
An indicator without data counts as 0 points and lowers the total.
- 04
Total and bands
The Score is the sum of the five groups, rounded to a whole number. 70 and above is high, 45–69 medium, below 45 low readiness.
24 indicators in five groups
The groups, their weights and indicators. The names and hints match those on the project page.
AStrategy & market
Weight: 20%A1Sector & demand
Domestic / export demand and drivers; for PPP — the public need
A2Location & access
Transport, logistics, proximity to borders and hubs
A3Competitive landscape
Existing players, entry barriers, alternatives
A4Business model
How the project earns: sales, services, rent, user fees, availability payments
A5Scalability
Potential to replicate as a network or cluster in other municipalities or countries
BProject readiness
Weight: 25%B1Readiness stage
From idea to ready-to-build
B2Legal status of the asset
Ownership / lease / use rights, encumbrances; for PPP — public property object
B3Permits & zoning
What has been obtained, what is needed and when
B4Technical condition / damage
Condition of the asset or site readiness
B5Utility connections
Power, gas, water, sewage, telecom
B6Realistic timeline
Months to start of works and to launch
CFinancials & investment terms
Weight: 25%C1CAPEX
Investment need and its structure
C2OPEX / unit costs
Key operating cost items
C3Revenue sources
Main streams and assumptions (tariffs, prices, volumes)
C4Payback
Payback period by scenario
C5ROI / IRR
Return by scenario
C6NPV
Net present value at the discount rate
DRisks & investor protection
Weight: 20%D1Legal risks
Litigation, arrests, disputes, encumbrances
D2Operational risks
Staff, raw materials, contractors, supply
D3Security risks
Regional profile, insurance, phasing
D4Deal structure & security
Equity / debt / JV / PPP, collateral, guarantees, escrow
ETeam & governance
Weight: 10%E1Team track record
Delivered projects, project owner’s reputation
E2Reporting transparency
KPIs, regular reporting, budget and schedule
E3Delivery capacity
Technical partner, PMC / general contractor
Data confidence
A separate 0–100% measure of how much of the input data is backed. It does not change the Score; it shows how far the Score can be trusted. A project may have a high Score but low confidence if documents have not been added yet.
60%
Document evidence
the share of indicators with a supporting document attached
25%
Completeness
the share of indicators that are filled in
15%
Verification level
the project’s L0, L1 or L2
“Documented” and “Self-declared”
On a project page, each rated indicator carries a tag showing where the data comes from.
A supporting document is attached to the indicator (for example a registry extract, permit, contract or feasibility study). A moderator reviews the document before the project is published.
The value was entered by the project owner and is not yet backed by a document. It counts towards the Score but does not raise data confidence.
Verification levels L0–L2
The level is shown on every project card. It is the result of checks, not a registration type.
- L0
Self-declared
Data entered by the owner. A moderator checked the passport for completeness and obvious inconsistencies, but documents have not yet been verified.
- L1
Documents checked
A moderator checked the organisation’s registry data and the project’s key documents (authority, title to the asset, permits — depending on the project type).
- L2
Enhanced verification
Additional checks: beneficial owners, sanctions screening and confirmation by a platform partner or an independent party.
For investors: “Domain confirmed”
A corporate e-mail address has been confirmed automatically by its domain. This is not KYC: full counterparty checks take place at the deal stage, before access to sensitive documents.
What a moderator checks
Every project is moderated before publication. A review takes up to 3 business days.
- Completeness of the project passport: required fields, amounts, timelines
- Consistency of the declared data with the attached documents
- The organisation’s registry data and its representative’s authority
- Sanctions screening of the organisation and beneficial owners — for the relevant badge
- No obvious signs of fraud, duplication or prohibited sectors
- For recovery projects — an official document on the war damage (stored privately; only the badge is public)
Moderation checks the card’s completeness and, for level L1, the supporting documents; it is not an independent legal, technical or financial due diligence.
Trust badges: what they mean and who checks them
- Checked against registers
The organisation’s details were checked against the official registry of its country of registration. A moderator performs the check; its date is recorded in the log.
- Sanctions screened
The organisation and its ultimate beneficial owners were screened against sanctions lists (EU, UN, US, UK, Ukraine). Re-screening takes place periodically.
- War damage confirmed
A moderator reviewed an official document on the damage. The document itself is not published.
- Signed with QES
The document is signed with a qualified electronic signature.
- Confirmed by partner
The data was confirmed by a platform partner — an organisation with which a separate agreement exists.
What you can rely on
- Moderation checks the card’s completeness and, for level L1, the supporting documents; it is not an independent legal, technical or financial due diligence.
- The project owner is responsible for project claims; every indicator is marked “Documented” or “Self-declared”.
- A request, saved search or NDA does not oblige anyone to invest or sell.
- We never take or hold funds; escrow only through the partner bank.
Your plan never affects the Score, verification level or moderation outcome. Featured placement is always labelled.
- The Score reflects readiness and documentation as of the calculation date and is updated when the owner adds data or documents.
- Financial scenarios (IRR, NPV, payback) are the project owner’s assumptions, not a platform forecast.
- USD amounts on summary pages are indicative (at reference rates); the project page shows amounts in the project’s own currency.
Version history
v1.0 · 13.10.2026
First public version of the methodology: 24 indicators, five groups, a data-confidence measure and levels L0–L2.
See it on a project page
The Score, confidence and the “Documented” / “Self-declared” tags are shown on every project page.