IMC 2024 teams — official standings and universities

Studolymp / IMC / 2024

IMC 2024

contestants 401 · problems 10 (5+5) · scale 0–10 · per-problem yes

Click any row to unfold its full profile — roster, per-problem chart, rank on every metric. Column headers sort the table (# is the place under the current sort); definitions live in the methodology at the bottom of the page.

as registered with the IMC — the official team contest

score =

#	team	n	best	score▼	average	median	FSTHM	league
1	St Petersburg State University	5	99	325.8	82.7	74	5···	First Prize
2	University of Bonn	7	86	307.1	79.7	71	61··	First Prize
3	Jagiellonian University	5	83	278.4	71.7	62	41··	First Prize
4	Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology	4	71	266.5	68.3	67	3·1·	First Prize
5	BarcelonaTech Team A	5	79	265	68.3	59	32··	First Prize
6	National and Kapodistrian University of Athens	4	71	264.3	67.3	65.5	31··	First Prize
7	EPFL Bernoulli Team	8	70	261.9	68.7	53.5	431·	First Prize
8	MIM FORCE	4	71	255.8	64.3	61	4···	First Prize
9	Yerevan State University	4	69	253.5	64.3	62	31··	First Prize
10	Lomonosov MSU	4	73	252.8	64.3	60	22··	Second Prize
11	Nanyang Technological University	4	75	251.8	63.7	58	22··	Second Prize
12	Bar Ilan University	4	73	250.5	64	59.5	3·1·	First Prize
13	Universiteit Leiden	5	80	250.4	64.3	56	32··	First Prize
14	Ivan the Confessor's Team of Teamless Students	75	70	242.7	70	32	12111324	First Prize
15	ΝUPBrains	4	63	238	61.7	61	3··1	First Prize
16	University of Ljubljana	7	79	237.1	62	50	232·	Second Prize
17	Belarusian State University	5	76	236.8	60.7	51	23··	Second Prize
18	PUC-Rio	6	65	229.8	60	49	222·	Second Prize
19	BarcelonaTech Team 1	4	67	226.5	57.7	53	211·	Second Prize
20	École Polytechnique	4	63	222.3	57	54	211·	Second Prize
21	Universidad Complutense de Madrid	4	66	220	57	52.5	21·1	Second Prize
22	Constructor University	4	61	218.8	56	53.5	211·	Second Prize
23	University of Warwick	5	67	216.6	56	45	22·1	Second Prize
24	Charles University	4	63	215.8	54.7	50.5	22··	Second Prize
25	Universität Wien	4	59	212	55	53	21·1	Second Prize
26	ELTE	5	60	206.6	53.3	42	2·3·	Third Prize
27	KU Leuven	3	66	205.3	51.3	49	111·	Third Prize
28	NUPBrains-juniors	4	58	201.5	51.3	48	2·2·	Third Prize
29	Utrecht University	5	72	191.2	51	36	1111	Third Prize
30	University of Zagreb	3	52	190.7	47.7	51	·21·	Third Prize
31	TDU A	4	55	190.5	48	44.5	121·	Second Prize
32	Universidades de La Rioja, Zaragoza y UAM	8	63	189.9	51.7	30	2·14	Third Prize
33	I.T.A.	5	53	189.4	49.3	47	·311	Second Prize
34	University of Bristol	4	51	189.3	48.7	47.5	·3·1	Second Prize
35	University of Hannover	3	71	186.7	46.7	44	11·1	HM
36	UGhent and ULiege	6	51	183.7	47.3	42	·33·	Second Prize
37	FGV-EMAp	7	61	182.7	49.3	29	1114	Third Prize
38	IUHD	3	57	182.7	45.7	42	1·2·	Third Prize
39	Universidad de Sevilla	4	63	180.8	46.3	38	1·21	Third Prize
40	Novosibirsk State University	3	61	178.7	44.7	39	1·2·	Third Prize
41	TDU B	4	52	175.8	44.3	40.5	·13·	Third Prize
42	Math League MEPhI	3	53	170.7	42.7	48	·2·1	HM
43	SAMF	4	48	170.3	43.3	41	·121	Third Prize
44	Indonesia Team	6	47	169.5	44	38.5	·231	Third Prize
45	Tbilisi	4	60	167.8	43	34.5	1·12	HM
46	Team Brazil 2	4	53	162.8	41.7	36	·112	HM
47	University of Amsterdam	9	47	160.7	43.7	27	·215	Third Prize
48	Team Brazil 1	3	52	160	40	47	·2·1	HM
49	NYUAD	5	54	158.2	41	32	·113	HM
50	Los Planetas	3	48	157.3	39.3	38	·111	HM
51	Highest Level	2	60	156	—	52	11··
52	Fraction Faction	8	48	155.3	42.3	31.5	·132	Third Prize
53	TU Berlin	3	47	154.7	38.7	36	·12·	Third Prize
54	Ben Gurion University of the Negev team	4	47	154.3	39.3	35.5	·121	Third Prize
55	University of Tübingen	6	49	151.8	41.3	30	·121	Third Prize
56	Baku State University	2	61	150	—	50	1·1·
56	Uaic	2	58	150	—	50	1·1·
58	Comenius University	4	51	148.8	38	31.5	·112	HM
59	Shahid Bahonar University and Afzalipour Institute	3	47	144	36	46	·2·1	HM
60	UniMi	3	59	140	35	32	1··1
61	Tartu	4	41	137.5	35.3	32.5	··22	HM
62	University of Nottingham Ningbo China	4	42	134.5	35	31.5	··21	HM
63	Constructor University 2	5	55	132.2	36	15	1·11	HM
64	ADA University (Azerbaijan)	4	37	128	33.3	31.5	··21	HM
65	Universidade de São Paulo (USP)	5	33	123	31.7	29	··23	HM
66	Russian Armenian University	1	61	122	—	61	1···
67	RUDN Team	8	50	120.9	32.3	20.5	·1·7	HM
68		1	58	116	—	58	1···
69	IUHD Team 2	4	32	104.3	27.3	25	···3	HM
70	UPS Toulouse	2	35	100.5	—	33.5	··11
71	Golden Math Warriors	3	38	94.7	23.7	19	··11
72	TSUE	2	36	94.5	—	31.5	··11
73	Team Finland	4	35	87	22.3	16	··12	HM
74	Kazakh-British Technical University	3	34	84	21	23	··11
74	Plekhanov RUE	3	22	84	21	21	···3	HM
76	University of Groningen	2	28	78	—	26	···2
77	S.Seydi Institute	1	37	74	—	37	··1·
78	Universidad Pontificia Comillas	5	22	70.6	18.7	13	···2
79	University of Göttingen	2	21	60	—	20	···2

One row per registered IMC team — the contest’s own object: a team may mix universities, a university may enter several, and a contestant may be in none. Every number is computed over that team’s roster.
401 contestants · 79 teams (79 ranked) · prize cutoffs: First ≥ 55 · Second ≥ 43 · Third ≥ 33 · Honourable Mention ≥ 15

Methodology

Grouping. Contestants are grouped by the university printed in the official individual results, after a safe cleanup (case, diacritics, punctuation). Contestants with no listed affiliation form a separate unranked bucket. This view is unofficial; the IMC team contest (registered teams, incl. national and combined squads) is a different ranking.

Score formulas. official = sum of the top-3 totals + mean of all members (the IMC team-contest formula used in 2006–2019, applied here to university rosters); top-3 avg, top-5 avg (needs n ≥ 5), median, mean, best. The # column is the place under the current sort (ties share a place) — sort by any column and # becomes the rank in that rating; the default sort is the selected score formula, and clicking # returns to it. Only universities with n ≥ 3 are ranked; smaller ones are listed below with their individual results — facts, not statistics.

Median. For an even roster the median is the mean of the two middle totals — never the upper one, so a 4-person team gets no free half-step up.

A caveat on the official formula: its team-average term is not size-monotone — bringing one extra weaker contestant can lower the score (the top-3 formulas and the league never punish a bigger delegation). Keep that in mind when comparing selective and inclusive teams under the default ranking.

League = the prize level of the team’s third-best contestant, measured against this year’s real prize cutoffs. Third-best, because that grades the whole leading trio (the classic “team of three”), and because it is monotone: bringing one more student can never lower it — a median-based league would punish exactly the teams that bring many students. The median is shown separately in the passport. Prize cutoffs are used because they are published, understood by everyone, and auto-adjust to each year’s difficulty — no invented thresholds.

Evenness. balance = 3rd-best / best (1.00 = perfectly even trio); star gap = best − 2nd; without best = where the team would rank after removing its best contestant. Deliberately no mean/std composites: on rosters of 3–5 they reward “even but weak”.

Small-cohort honesty. Team shares are phrased “k/n”, never bare percents; points are only compared within one year (prize shares and percentiles travel across years, points don’t).