Europe Tech Hackathon at ViennaUP: Evaluation of Solutions

Each team will have 3 minutes to pitch and 5 minutes for questions from the jury. This short format is intentional, it encourages clarity, focus and sharp decision-making.

In addition to the final stage presentation, there will also be a short technology check by the Sustainista team on Saturday evening, before the final presentations take place. This check is designed to support fairness and transparency, it gives the team the opportunity to verify what has actually been built and ensure the final jury session reflects the actual quality of each prototype.

All teams will be assessed across six categories. In each category, jurors will score projects on a scale from 1 to 5, and those scores will then be weighted. Not every dimension counts equally.

Technology has the highest weight in the overall score, because the hackathon is first and foremost a tech-driven format. At the same time, technical ambition alone is not enough, a prototype also needs to solve a relevant problem, offer a coherent user experience, demonstrate realistic implementation potential, and show awareness of impact and responsibility.

Technology sits at the centre of the evaluation. The jury will look at the depth and credibility of the technical solution and at whether the prototype genuinely works. Teams do not need to present a fully finished product, but they do need to demonstrate that there is real substance behind the concept.

Particular attention will be given to how AI is used. A project will score well if AI is integrated in a meaningful and technically justified way, rather than added as a superficial label. Teams should be prepared to explain what was built during the hackathon, which components are functional, what remains simulated or mocked, and where the current technical limitations lie. Honest communication is a strength.

A strong hackathon project starts with a clear and meaningful problem. The jury will assess how well the team understands the challenge and whether the proposed solution addresses a real pain point for users, partners or the market.

The best submissions will be very concrete: they will show who the user is, what currently does not work well, and why the proposed solution would be a meaningful improvement over the status quo. If the problem framing is vague or the connection to the challenge feels weak, the score in this category will drop, even if the technology itself is interesting.

Good design is much more than visual polish. In the context of this hackathon, design also includes usability, information architecture, trust, accessibility and the overall logic of the user journey. The jury will assess how intuitive and understandable the solution is, and whether the process flow has been thought through from beginning to end.

Even technically advanced projects can lose points here if they are confusing, difficult to navigate or disconnected from how people would actually use them. Technology only creates value when it can be understood, adopted and used effectively.

The jury will consider whether the project could realistically move beyond the hackathon. This does not mean that teams need a perfect market strategy or a detailed five-year plan, what matters is whether they can show a credible path toward implementation.

Key questions: Who would use, buy, fund or sponsor this solution? What would a pilot look like? What would need to happen next for the idea to become something real? Early-stage concepts can still perform strongly here if the team demonstrates it understands the operational or commercial logic behind the solution.

Because the hackathon is rooted in purposeful innovation, impact is a meaningful part of the evaluation. The jury will look at the environmental, social or economic value the solution could create and whether the team has reflected on possible trade-offs or risks.

This includes questions around fairness, transparency, privacy, data quality, bias and unintended consequences. We are not expecting a full compliance framework, but we do expect teams to demonstrate responsible thinking, especially when working with AI, automated decision-making or sensitive user interactions.

The final presentation is short, so clarity matters. The jury will assess how effectively the team communicates the problem, the solution and the prototype during the final pitch and Q&A. A strong demo should make it easy to understand what has actually been built and why it matters.

Documentation also plays an important role: since the jury may review projects after the live presentation, each team needs to make its work understandable and verifiable beyond the stage. Good documentation allows reviewers to distinguish clearly between working functionality, conceptual elements and future ideas.

Each team should prepare a compact but complete submission package:

- Repository link with code or no-code build assets and a clear README - Short explanation of the architecture and technology stack - Demo link or short video where relevant - One-page summary covering the problem, the solution, the target users, the business model and the expected impact - Contact details for follow-up conversations after the hackathon

Teams should keep their repositories, demo environments and supporting materials in a review-ready state throughout the event.

The most successful teams are usually not the ones that build the most features, they are the ones that make smart choices, stay focused and communicate clearly.

Start documenting early rather than leaving everything until the final hours. Be transparent about what is already working and what is still conceptual. Use the three-minute pitch to tell one strong story instead of trying to cover too much. Make sure your technology choices serve the challenge, rather than becoming the challenge itself.

We are excited to see what you build in Vienna. Build boldly, stay focused, and make your work easy to understand, easy to test and worth taking further.