IMC 2025 teams — official standings and universities

Studolymp / IMC / 2025

IMC 2025

contestants 434 · 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	Saint-Petersburg State University	8	100	355	92.7	77	8···	First Prize
2	Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn	8	86	324.4	85.7	69	61·1	First Prize
3	Jagiellonian University	7	98	313.9	81.7	70	52··	First Prize
4	Tel Aviv University	5	78	303.4	76.7	75	5···	First Prize
5	MIPT	6	81	296.3	77.7	63.5	321·	First Prize
6	EPFL-Bernoulli	6	86	286.3	74	62	42··	First Prize
7	Ivan the Confessor's Team of Teamless Students	91	89	286	85	29	12101519	First Prize
8	BarcelonaTech	5	80	273.2	70.7	58	4·1·	First Prize
9	Charles University	4	76	267.3	68.3	64.5	31··	First Prize
10	MIM FORCE ONE	4	80	244	62	53	22··	Second Prize
11	Belarusian State University	6	65	243	63.3	57	32·1	First Prize
12	ΝUPBrains	4	68	240.8	61.3	58	3·1·	First Prize
13	Universiteit Leiden	5	77	239.4	61.7	53	131·	Second Prize
14	University of Bristol	3	68	237.3	59.3	55	12··	Second Prize
15	Novosibirsk State University	4	67	233.3	59.3	55.5	211·	Second Prize
16	Higher School of Economics	6	68	231.7	59.7	54.5	231·	Second Prize
17	Ecole Polytechnique	9	64	231.2	61.3	53	3311	First Prize
18	UGhent and ULiege	4	69	230.3	59.3	54.5	21·1	Second Prize
19	University of Ljubljana	8	70	228.6	60.7	46	223·	Second Prize
20	Nanyang Technological University	6	93	224.7	61.7	28	2··2	HM
21	National Team of Turkmenistan	7	61	221.7	57.7	46	223·	Second Prize
22	MSU	5	81	216.6	56.7	37	1112	Third Prize
23	PUC-Rio	8	66	216.3	59	41.5	2212	Second Prize
24	Yerevan State University	4	64	207.5	53	47.5	2·2·	Third Prize
25	Universidade de São Paulo	6	61	204.3	54.3	38.5	2·22	Third Prize
26	Utrecht University	6	61	204.2	53	43.5	1221	Second Prize
27	KU Leuven	4	57	201	51	48	121·	Second Prize
28	MMC, INDIA	4	55	200.5	50.7	48.5	·31·	Second Prize
29	The Alber Blanc Team	5	60	199.8	52.3	40	2·21	Third Prize
30	New York University, Abu Dhabi	4	66	199.3	52	45	2··1	HM
31	Math&Maroc	4	52	198.5	50	49	·4··	Second Prize
31	Technion	4	52	198.5	50	49	·4··	Second Prize
33	NUPBrains-juniors	4	60	198	51.3	47	1111	Third Prize
34	TU Berlin	4	60	197.8	50.7	46	1111	Third Prize
35	Free university of Tbilisi	5	63	193.8	50.3	43	1121	Third Prize
36	ELTE	6	55	184.3	47.7	41	·321	Second Prize
37	ETH Zurich	7	67	180.4	50	30	1·21	Third Prize
38	Constructor University	5	56	180	47	40	1112	Third Prize
39	PRUE	4	49	179	46	44.5	·211	Third Prize
40	Open University	2	83	177	—	59	1·1·
41	Austrian Avalanche	6	50	176.3	46.7	40.5	·32·	Second Prize
42	University of Tübingen	5	49	171.2	44	39	·212	Third Prize
43	I.T.A.	6	48	170	44	38.5	·132	Third Prize
44	Algeria	5	50	169.4	43.7	37	·221	Third Prize
45	University of Amsterdam	9	51	165.3	45	30	·132	Third Prize
46	Universidad de Sevilla	4	53	163	42	36.5	·112	HM
47	Team Finland	5	44	162.4	42.7	42	·122	Third Prize
48	RUDN-team	5	47	155.6	41.3	34	·121	Third Prize
49	Warwick	5	52	150	38.7	29	·113	HM
50	South Africa Combined Team	4	53	147.8	38.3	31	·1·2	HM
51	Ker(PoliTo)	4	40	146	37.3	36	··22	HM
52	UCL	4	42	136.8	35	31.5	··22	HM
53	SUPE@UNIUD	7	39	134.6	35.3	28	··24	HM
54	ADA University (Azerbaijan)	4	47	133	34.7	28.5	·1·2	HM
55	Fundação Getulio Vargas	4	46	128.3	33.3	27	·11·
56	University of Zagreb	2	50	124.5	—	41.5	·1·1
57		4	51	118.8	31.3	21.5	·1·1
58	Instituto Militar de Engenharia	6	43	118.5	32	16	··2·
59	TSUE	4	41	117.3	30.3	25	··11
60		4	36	117	30	27	··12	HM
61	Central University	4	43	114.8	29.3	22.5	··12	HM
62	Im(PoliTo)	4	46	111.8	29	20.5	·1·1
63	RWTH Aachen I	3	43	110.7	27.7	32	··11
64	University of Groningen	2	38	88.5	—	29.5	··11
65	Olimpíada Brasileira de Matemática	2	29	85.5	—	28.5	···2
66	University of Primorska	3	32	77.3	19.3	23	···2
67	UNNC	4	30	75.5	20	15	···1
68	Universtiy of Szeged	3	27	74.7	18.7	18	···1
69	Charles University B	1	37	74	—	37	··1·
70	RWTH Aachen II	3	33	73.3	18.3	15	···1
71	Kazakh-British Technical University	1	36	72	—	36	··1·
72	MaTCo	4	15	33	8.7	5.5	····
73	Universidad Pontificia Comillas	5	11	30.6	8.3	4	····
74	UCLan Cyprus	2	5	10.5	—	3.5	····

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.
434 contestants · 74 teams (74 ranked) · prize cutoffs: First ≥ 56 · Second ≥ 44 · Third ≥ 34 · Honourable Mention ≥ 20

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).