ESAT preparation guide

Cambridge Engineering ESAT scores: what the official FOI data shows

Q: Does Cambridge publish a required ESAT score?

No. Cambridge has never published a required score or cut-off of any kind. The data on this page comes from Freedom of Information responses and describes the actual score distribution in the 2025 cycle, not an admissions rule.

Q: Do international applicants have to score higher than Home applicants?

No official document says so. What the FOI data shows is an outcome: international offer holders in the 2025 cycle averaged notably higher (7.41, 7.20 and 7.21) than Home offer holders (5.67, 5.85 and 5.67). That more plausibly reflects a strongly self-selected international pool and fiercer competition for places than a written double standard.

Q: Is it easier to get an offer from a college with a lower average?

The data cannot support that tactic. The responses contain no per-college applicant numbers, so competitiveness cannot be computed; college popularity shifts every year; and the winter pool reallocates applicants between colleges anyway. Treat the spread as context, not as a betting table.

Q: Does this data apply to Natural Sciences or other courses?

No. Both FOI responses cover Engineering (H100) only, where the module combination is fixed as Mathematics 1, Mathematics 2 and Physics. Courses such as Natural Sciences use different module combinations and draw different applicant pools, so the figures cannot be carried across.

Q: Is this data still a useful reference when preparing for 2027 entry?

Yes, as a reference frame, provided you remember it is a single snapshot of the 2025 cycle. The ESAT's 1.0 to 9.0 scale and the official distribution anchors (a typical candidate around 4.5, roughly ten percent above 7.0) hold steady from sitting to sitting, so the order-of-magnitude judgement about where offer holders sit remains valid; for individual college averages, wait for data from later cycles.

Cambridge does not routinely publish ESAT statistics, and its official line has always been that there is no fixed score requirement. In 2025, however, two Freedom of Information requests lifted a corner of that curtain: the University's Information Compliance Office formally released ESAT score statistics for Engineering (H100) in the 2025 admissions cycle, covering all 29 colleges, all three modules, and both applicants and offer holders, with a separate breakdown comparing Home and international applicants. It is the most granular first-hand Cambridge ESAT data available anywhere in the public domain. This page turns the two responses into readable conclusions, and pairs them with an interactive college-by-college explorer so you can inspect every college and module yourself.

7 sections1,445 words8 min read5 official sources

Practise 72 ESAT papers (2 free)Full ESAT guide

Papers: 72
Questions: 2790
Free to try: 2

Cambridge Engineering ESAT at a Glance

Data source: Two official Cambridge FOI responses (FOI-2025-956 and FOI-2025-982): Engineering H100, 2025 cycle, all 29 colleges
International offer holders: Roughly 7.41 in Mathematics 1, 7.20 in Physics, 7.21 in Mathematics 2, all inside the official top-10% band
Home offer holders: Between 5.67 and 5.85 across the three modules
Official anchors: Typical candidate around 4.5; roughly 10% score above 7.0
Bottom line: Averages are not thresholds: offer holders include single-module scores as low as 3.1

Every figure is taken directly from the two FOI originals published on WhatDoTheyKnow, the public FOI archive; they describe the score distribution of the 2025 cycle, not an admissions rule, with no extrapolation.

In short

The data comes from two official Freedom of Information responses issued by the University of Cambridge (FOI-2025-956 and FOI-2025-982), covering all 29 colleges for Engineering in the 2025 cycle; Cambridge does not publish these statistics of its own accord.
International offer holders averaged roughly 7.41 in Mathematics 1, 7.20 in Physics and 7.21 in Mathematics 2, all sitting inside the band UAT-UK describes as the top ten percent of candidates, while Home offer-holder averages ranged from 5.67 to 5.85.
Colleges genuinely differ: across standard undergraduate colleges, offer-holder averages span roughly 5.6 to 7.3 depending on the module, but an average is not a difficulty ranking, and college choice should never rest on this single number.
Averages are not thresholds: single-module scores as low as 3.1 appear among standard-college offer holders, which shows that interviews and the rest of the application still carry real weight beyond the test.

I

Part 1 of 3

Sections 01 to 03

01

Where this data comes from, and why it can be trusted

The United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act allows anyone to request information held by public bodies, and universities fall within its scope. In 2025, two public FOI requests received formal responses from the University of Cambridge's Information Compliance Office, setting out ESAT score statistics for Engineering (UCAS code H100) in the 2025 admissions cycle. Both responses are formal documents issued by the University itself, and anyone can verify the originals.

FOI-2025-956

Answered 17 October 2025

All 29 colleges, every module: minimum, mean and maximum for applicants and offer holders separately

FOI-2025-982

Answered 3 November 2025

The same cycle split by fee status, again comparing applicants with offer holders

Course covered

Engineering (H100)

Three modules: Mathematics 1, Physics and Mathematics 2

Published on

WhatDoTheyKnow

The public FOI archive, where anyone can check the originals

Two points of scope come first: the responses contain score statistics, not admissions rules, and Cambridge notes in the documents that some applicants change college or course during the cycle, with figures grouped by application year. Every number on this page and in the college explorer is taken directly from these two originals, with no extrapolation of our own.

02

How far apart applicants and offer holders sit

Take the 25 standard undergraduate colleges together (setting aside the four mature colleges, which only admit students aged 21 and over) and the applicant pool centres around 4.7 to 4.8, lining up closely with the picture UAT-UK paints in its official Explanation of Results: Cambridge Engineering applicants are somewhat stronger than the overall test-taking population, but not dramatically so. Offer holders are a different world; the journey from submitting an application to holding an offer spans about a point and a half per module on average.

	Applicants	Offer holders
Mathematics 1	4.84	6.30
Physics	4.72	6.40
Mathematics 2	4.77	6.23

Mean of college averages across the 25 standard undergraduate colleges (mature colleges set aside), Engineering, 2025 cycle.

c. 4.5

The typical candidate, per the official Explanation of Results

c. 10%

Share of candidates scoring above 7.0, per the official description

c. 1.5

Average per-module gap between offer holders and the applicant pool

For anyone preparing, the first actionable conclusion is that matching the typical candidate is not the goal. The applicant pool centres near the typical candidate, while the offer-holder pool has shifted decisively towards the top band; the reference group that matters is the offer holders.

03

Home versus international: a gap confirmed in official figures

FOI-2025-982 is the more consequential of the two documents for international candidates. It shows that before offers even enter the picture, the international pool in the 2025 Cambridge Engineering cycle is already visibly stronger, and at the offer-holder level the gap widens further.

	Home	International
Applicant averages (M1 / Physics / M2)	4.25 / 4.32 / 4.24	5.51 / 5.19 / 5.38
Offer-holder averages (M1 / Physics / M2)	5.67 / 5.85 / 5.67	7.41 / 7.20 / 7.21

At the offer-holder level the international averages sit 1.74, 1.35 and 1.54 higher; set against UAT-UK's statement that roughly ten percent of candidates score above 7.0, the average international offer holder sits inside the top tenth of the entire test-taking population.

One thing must be said plainly: these figures describe an outcome, not a rule. No Cambridge document states that international applicants must reach a higher score, and the gap most plausibly reflects self-selection in the international pool combined with the intensity of competition for places.

The practical implication for international candidates is unambiguous: the group that actually receives offers in your lane averages at that height. Using structured practice and full mock exams to push yourself into the top band is the part of the outcome that stays in your own hands.

II

Part 2 of 3

Sections 04 to 06

04

College by college: the differences are real, but easy to over-read

Lay the 25 standard undergraduate colleges out module by module and the differences in offer-holder averages are plain to see; averaging the three modules, the spread from first to last is roughly 1.2. The complete figures for all 29 colleges, including the minimum and maximum behind every cell, are available in the interactive explorer .

	Top three	Bottom three
Mathematics 1	Murray Edwards 7.08, Christ's 7.05, Downing 6.94	St Catharine's 5.60, Girton 5.79, Emmanuel 5.81
Physics	Clare 7.34, Selwyn 7.06, Trinity Hall 7.00	King's 5.63, St Catharine's 5.86, Churchill 5.90
Mathematics 2	Robinson 6.99, Murray Edwards 6.95, Clare 6.80	St Catharine's 5.70, Girton 5.78, Selwyn 5.79
Three-module average	Murray Edwards 6.89, Trinity Hall 6.80, Clare 6.77	St Catharine's 5.72, King's 5.75, Churchill 5.93

Offer-holder averages across the 25 standard undergraduate colleges only; the three-module average spans roughly 1.2 from first to last.

The four mature colleges (Hughes Hall, St Edmund's, Wolfson and Lucy Cavendish) admit only students aged 21 and over. Their applicant pools are not comparable with the standard colleges and their samples are tiny: in places the minimum, mean and maximum coincide exactly, which suggests a single person behind the cell. Their averages should not be read alongside the rest.

05

Is the spread a signal for college choice?

Seeing a 1.2 spread from top to bottom, the obvious thought follows: would applying to a college with a lower offer-holder average improve the odds? Slow down, for at least four reasons.

Reason one: no volume, no measure of competition

The FOI responses do not include the number of applicants or offers per college, and without volume an average tells you nothing about how competitive any college actually is.

Reason two: a single cycle's snapshot

The popularity of individual colleges shifts every year, and last year's quiet choice can be this year's crowded one.

Reason three: the winter pool reshuffles applicants

Cambridge's winter pool redistributes strong applicants between colleges, so a college's offer holders are not necessarily the people who originally applied there, which further shrinks any gain from playing the college game.

Reason four: a lower average does not mean easier

A lower average may simply mean that college was willing, that season, to make offers to applicants whose test scores were less extreme once interviews and the wider file were weighed, which is not the same thing as being easier.

The sounder reading treats the college spread as context: it tells you what each college's offer-holder cohort looked like, not where to place a tactical bet. Choose a college on its own merits, its size, atmosphere, accommodation and location, and spend the effort you control on pushing your score into the offer-holder band.

06

Turning the numbers into a practice target

The most practical use of this data is to replace hearsay about what counts as a competitive score with a reference frame that has a source. Keeping in mind that the average international offer holder scored around 7.4 says more about the required intensity of preparation than any motivational slogan could.

01Target

Anchor to your lane

International applicants should align their target band with the international offer-holder averages: all three modules in the region of 7, the top tenth of all candidates by the official description. Home applicants can look to 5.67 to 5.85, well above the applicant pool but far less extreme than the international lane.

02

Close gaps topic by topic

Use topic-by-topic practice to close specific gaps.

03

Stabilise under timed pressure

Use full timed mocks to stabilise your performance under pressure.

04

Turn errors into score

Use error analysis to convert every session into incremental score.

An average is the middle of a group, not an entry ticket: single-module scores as low as 3.1 appear among standard-college offer holders, and plenty of high scorers did not receive offers, because interviews and the rest of the file genuinely matter.

III

Part 3 of 3

Sections 07 to 07

07

Scope and limitations: read before citing

For this data to be used well, its boundaries need stating plainly: Averages are not admission requirements : Cambridge has never published a required score in any form, and the FOI data describes a distribution of outcomes, not a rule. Nothing can be weighted : the responses contain no per-college applicant counts, and figures for small colleges will swing considerably from year to year. Mature colleges sit outside the comparison : their samples are tiny and should not be compared with the standard colleges. College attribution carries a little churn : the University notes that some applicants change college or course mid-cycle, and the figures are grouped by application year. One snapshot, no extrapolation : this covers one course in one cycle. Module combinations differ between courses (Cambridge Engineering fixes Mathematics 1, Mathematics 2 and Physics), so extrapolating to other courses has no basis, and any cross-year use should state the cycle.

Within those boundaries, it remains the most solid public reference frame for Cambridge ESAT scores in existence: official documents, college-level granularity, applicants against offer holders, Home against international. We will track future FOI releases in later cycles and keep this page and the explorer up to date.

Hide mature colleges (tiny cohorts)

Average Mathematics 1 score by college · offer holders · 2025 cycle

Grey bars are mature colleges (21+ only): tiny cohorts, averages swing wildly. The FOI release does not include per-college applicant counts, and Cambridge notes some applicants move between colleges mid-cycle. Averages are not cut-offs.

Home vs International (FOI-2025-982) · offer holders vs applicants

Module	Home · applicants	Home · offer	Intl · applicants	Intl · offer
Mathematics 1	4.25	5.67	5.51	7.41
Physics	4.32	5.85	5.19	7.20
Mathematics 2	4.24	5.67	5.38	7.21

International offer holders averaged roughly 1.4 to 1.7 points above Home offer holders on every module in 2025: the overseas pool is far more competitive. Overall college mean shown above: 6.34.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Does Cambridge publish a required ESAT score?

No. Cambridge has never published a required score or cut-off of any kind. The data on this page comes from Freedom of Information responses and describes the actual score distribution in the 2025 cycle, not an admissions rule.

Do international applicants have to score higher than Home applicants?

No official document says so. What the FOI data shows is an outcome: international offer holders in the 2025 cycle averaged notably higher (7.41, 7.20 and 7.21) than Home offer holders (5.67, 5.85 and 5.67). That more plausibly reflects a strongly self-selected international pool and fiercer competition for places than a written double standard.

Is it easier to get an offer from a college with a lower average?

The data cannot support that tactic. The responses contain no per-college applicant numbers, so competitiveness cannot be computed; college popularity shifts every year; and the winter pool reallocates applicants between colleges anyway. Treat the spread as context, not as a betting table.

Does this data apply to Natural Sciences or other courses?

No. Both FOI responses cover Engineering (H100) only, where the module combination is fixed as Mathematics 1, Mathematics 2 and Physics. Courses such as Natural Sciences use different module combinations and draw different applicant pools, so the figures cannot be carried across.

Is this data still a useful reference when preparing for 2027 entry?

Yes, as a reference frame, provided you remember it is a single snapshot of the 2025 cycle. The ESAT's 1.0 to 9.0 scale and the official distribution anchors (a typical candidate around 4.5, roughly ten percent above 7.0) hold steady from sitting to sitting, so the order-of-magnitude judgement about where offer holders sit remains valid; for individual college averages, wait for data from later cycles.

SOURCES

Official sources

MORE GUIDES

Other ESAT preparation guides

FrontierVUE is an independent practice platform. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by UAT-UK, Pearson, OCR, the University of Cambridge, Imperial College London, or any official admissions-test owner.