IMAT 2026 RESULTS ANALYSIS
What the scores
tell us so far.
Our analysis of the anonymous results, focused on first-allocation cut-offs for EU and EU-equivalent applicants to public medicine in Italy.
anonymous results analysed
The scores are out. The admission list is not.
What are anonymous results? They are PDF tables released before the official ranking, with each applicant’s total and subject scores, identified by a code rather than a name.
They do not identify EU/non-EU status or applicants’ university preferences. They help us understand exam performance, but do not yet tell us who has secured a place.
EU & EU-equivalent forecast
What could the lowest cut-off be?
This refers to the lowest admission score for public medicine in the first allocation of the national EU/EU-equivalent ranking.
Our current assessment points to a lowest cut-off around 65 points.
First allocation · Medicine · EU & EU-equivalent
What this range means
An approximate forecast for whichever university has the lowest cut-off. It is not a cut-off for every university, and a score within the range does not assure admission.
What could change the forecast
Applicant composition, preferences and demand for new programmes remain unknown. The range is not a confidence interval: the actual cut-off may fall outside it.
This forecast is neither the eligibility threshold nor the final scrolling cut-off. Estimates consider the 2023–2025 history, the 2026 anonymous results and the 1,207 EU/EU-equivalent seats in the analysed scope.
University forecasts
The estimated range for each university.
First-allocation forecasts for EU and EU-equivalent applicants. The central estimate is a reference point; the range reflects variation across the scenarios considered.
| University | EU seats | Central estimate | Estimated range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milano Statale | 60 | 73.4 | 73–75 |
| Milano Bicocca (Bergamo) | 40 | 72.2 | 71–74 |
| La Sapienza (Roma) | 52 | 70.7 | 70–73 |
| Bologna | 140 | 69.9 | 69–72 |
| Pavia | 103 | 69.3 | 68–71 |
| Napoli Federico II | 35 | 69.2 | 68–71 |
| Padova (Venezia) | 75 | 68.8 | 68–71 |
| Torino (Orbassano) | 73 | 68.5 | 68–71 |
| Tor Vergata (Roma) | 65 | 67.8 | 67–70 |
| Parma (Piacenza) | 80 | 67.4 | 67–70 |
| Politecnica Marche (Ancona) | 30 | 67.3 | 66–70 |
| Bari | 89 | 66.5 | 65–69 |
| Campania Vanvitelli (Napoli) | 70 | 66.5 | 65–69 |
| Messina | 55 | 65.5 | 64–68 |
| Cagliari | 80 | 65.0 | 64–67 |
Ranges are approximate and are not confidence intervals. A university’s cut-off may fall outside its range, and the order of selectivity may change. The decimal in the central estimate does not imply guaranteed precision.
New programme options
How do the new options fit in?
Their seats are already included in the overall analysis. What we do not yet know is how applicants ranked these options alongside established programmes.
Firenze
50 EU seatsThis is the programme’s first edition. There is no previous cut-off to indicate its position among applicants’ preferences.
No individual range this yearPadova MedTech
70 EU seatsThis is a new programme, distinct from Padova/Venezia. Demand for MedTech may differ from demand for the established programme.
No individual range this yearCatania
40 EU seatsThe programme already existed, but EU seats return after none were offered in 2025. A comparable recent reference is therefore missing.
No individual range this yearMore options may redistribute demand.
These programmes may attract applicants who would otherwise choose other universities. That can change both individual cut-offs and the national minimum. We do not assume they will rank at the bottom, or above or below Cagliari solely because of their location. The overall forecast carries this additional uncertainty.
Score distribution
The curve shifted. So did the upper tail.
In 2026, high scores increased in both number and proportion. Compare years on a common scale.
Compare where scores cluster in each year. The percentage view allows comparisons between editions with different participant totals.
High scores grew faster than participation.
The dataset grew by 36%, but results of 70 or more nearly quadrupled. They also account for a larger share of all results.
60+ points
70+ points
80+ points
Percentages are shares of all results in each edition; bars use the same scale. In 2026, five results reached the maximum score of 90. The highest score alone does not measure exam difficulty.
Seats increased too.
There are 1,207 seats, up from 952 in 2025. This expansion helps absorb some of the growth, but the increase in high scores points towards higher cut-offs.
The dataset mixes categories. These percentages do not measure growth in EU applicants or actual competition per EU seat.
Mean scores rose in both groups.
The rise is not simply a shift towards more results from venues abroad: mean scores increased within both groups.
Test location does not identify citizenship or EU/non-EU status. These groups are not admission lists.
Your score in context
What does your score mean?
See how many results are lower, tied or higher. Then compare that performance with previous editions.
Edit the example above. The comparison updates instantly.
18,368 resultsAll applicant categories
Your score is higher than
82.80%of the anonymous 2026 results.
- Lower scores
- 15,209
- Equal scores
- 18
- Higher scores
- 3,141
Understanding ties and position
When scores are ordered from highest to lowest, 18 tied results occupy positions 3,142–3,159. The anonymous data cannot break these ties.
17.20% of results scored 65.2 or more. This is another way to read the same distribution.
Similar performance can mean a different score.
A score of 65.2 in 2026 has a similar relative standing to the scores below, across all results in each edition.
We compare the share of scores at or above yours in each year. These equivalents are approximate and are not admission cut-offs.
Performance by subject
Biology accounts for most of the rise.
The overall mean rose by 8.77 points. Biology contributed 11.68, partly offset by declines in other subjects.
Net scores after penalties, not accuracy rates. This comparison does not separate difficulty, preparation and applicant composition.
Biology · 23 questions
0.19% → 6.53%2025 → 2026High performance became much more common in Biology.
Logic · 5 questions
51.25% → 9.67%2025 → 2026The opposite movement means this edition cannot be described as easier in every subject.
For the exam’s educational context: content and difficulty analysis ↗.
Non-EU applicants
Why does the EU forecast not apply to non-EU applicants?
The exam is the same, but the selection process differs. Non-EU applicants resident abroad compete on each university’s local list, with its own reserved seats.
The missing information
We do not know which scores belong to each university’s non-EU applicants. Registration and pre-enrolment totals for this category are also unavailable at this stage. Taking the test abroad or having foreign citizenship does not establish that category.
What the historical tests showed
We tested estimates against previous years, but local variation was substantial. In the test that adjusted for each university’s seats, the 2025 mean absolute error was 5.3 points and the largest was 14.7. A narrow range now would imply reassurance that the data do not support.
Bari
−16.5 pointsThe cut-off fell from 65.8 to 49.3.
Parma · Tor Vergata
+8.5 points at eachBoth rose despite the fall in the overall exam mean. Local demand matters greatly.
What you can take from this analysis: an assessment of your relative performance and how the exam changed. Assessing your actual competition requires the results and composition of your chosen university’s non-EU list. EU ranges should not be used as cut-off targets for this category.
Assumptions & limits
How to interpret these forecasts.
The analysis combines 2026 anonymous results, previous editions and available seats. The datasets were reviewed and estimates checked against past years.
The focus is the first EU allocation
Ranges concern public medicine in Italy, for EU and EU-equivalent applicants. They do not estimate the final scrolling round or replace the official ranking.
The anonymous dataset is broader
The PDFs combine applicant categories and programme preferences that cannot be separated. An anonymous overall position is not an EU rank or an admission probability.
Applicant behaviour may change
Forecasts assume some continuity with previous years. Changes in seats, preferences, applicant composition and new programmes may put cut-offs outside the ranges.
The historical evidence has limits
There are few comparable editions and some gaps in historical cut-offs. Tests help assess estimates but do not establish a confidence level for the ranges.
Retrospective validation of the analysis
We reapplied the lowest first-allocation EU cut-off estimate to 2024 and 2025. Each test used only earlier editions as historical references. We then compared the estimate with the observed cut-off.
2024
LOWEST EU CUT-OFF · FIRST ALLOCATION- Our estimate
- 56.8
- Observed cut-off
- 56.9
Difference in points · 0 = exact match
2025
LOWEST EU CUT-OFF · FIRST ALLOCATION- Our estimate
- 55.2
- Observed cut-off
- 54.8
Difference in points · 0 = exact match
In both tests, the estimate was less than half a point from the lowest available observed cut-off. The charts use the same scale and show historical differences, not an error margin for 2026.
What this validation supports
The close results provide empirical support for using relative performance and available seats together to estimate the lowest EU cut-off. They are evidence that the method and its assumptions were consistent with these two cases.
What still needs to be confirmed
Two tests do not establish that applicant preferences and composition will remain stable in 2026. University-level errors varied more, and these results do not validate the coverage of the forecast ranges.
References
- 2026 anonymous results and historical datasets reviewed by Aprova Italia.
- IMAT guide: seats and historical cut-offs ↗
- MUR · DM 1005/2026 ↗
- Official IMAT 2026 calendar ↗