Europe Tech Hackathon at ViennaUP: Evaluation of Solutions
How your prototype will be evaluated
The Europe Tech Hackathon at ViennaUP brings together people from technology, design and business to build working prototypes around real-world challenges. Because the event is intentionally interdisciplinary, the evaluation will go far beyond code alone. The jury will look at how convincingly each team combines technical substance, user-centred thinking, process logic and business relevance into one coherent solution.
Our goal is to make the judging framework transparent from the start. By publishing the criteria in advance, we want to help teams understand what matters most during the build phase, what the jury will expect during the final presentation, and how each project should be documented so it can be reviewed properly after the event.
At the heart of the hackathon is the belief that strong innovation does not happen in silos. Great prototypes are rarely only technical, only visual or only strategic. The strongest teams are usually those that connect all of these elements: they solve a meaningful problem, they build something tangible, they make it understandable for users, and they show a credible path toward real-world application.
What the final pitch looks like
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. Rather than trying to show every feature or every detail of the build process, teams should concentrate on communicating a clear story: what problem they are addressing, what they have built, how the technology works, why it matters for users, and how the solution could move beyond the hackathon.
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 in the judging process. It gives our team the opportunity to understand the technical status of each prototype, verify what has actually been built, and ensure that the final jury session is based not only on presentation quality, but also on a realistic view of the underlying solution.
Because of this, every team is expected to submit a complete documentation package that allows the prototype to be reviewed beyond the live demo.
How the evaluation works
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. This means that not every dimension counts equally. A polished presentation can strengthen a project, but it will not compensate for weak technical execution or a solution that does not clearly address the challenge.
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.
Evaluation framework
1. Technology quality and AI execution — 30%
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. The jury will want to understand whether the technology stack is coherent, whether the system architecture makes sense, and whether the chosen tools or models actually support the problem being solved.
Teams should therefore 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 simple but well-executed prototype will generally score better than an ambitious concept that cannot be demonstrated credibly.
2. Problem fit and solution relevance — 20%
A strong hackathon project starts with a clear and meaningful problem. In this category, 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 if the connection to the challenge feels weak or forced, the score in this category will drop, even if the technology itself is interesting.
This part of the evaluation is important because relevance matters. A technically impressive prototype is less convincing if it does not clearly solve something worth solving.
3. Design, UX and process logic — 15%
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.
Teams should show how a user moves through the solution, how decisions are made within the system, and why the process would make sense in a real-world setting. Even technically advanced projects can lose points here if they are confusing, difficult to navigate or disconnected from how people would actually use them.
This criterion reflects an important principle of product development: technology only creates value when it can be understood, adopted and used effectively.
4. Business model and implementation potential — 15%
The jury will also 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.
That includes questions such as: Who would use, buy, fund or sponsor this solution? Who would own it internally or externally? What would a pilot or first rollout look like? What would need to happen next for the idea to become something real?
Early-stage concepts can still perform very strongly in this category if the team demonstrates that it understands the operational or commercial logic behind the solution. A convincing project does not need to be fully mature, but it should show that the team has thought beyond the prototype itself.
5. Impact, sustainability and responsible AI — 10%
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 or a perfect ethical review. However, we do expect teams to demonstrate responsible thinking, especially when they work with AI, automated decision-making or sensitive user interactions.
Projects that combine strong innovation with thoughtful reflection on impact tend to stand out, because they signal maturity and real-world awareness.
6. Pitch, demo and documentation quality — 10%
The final presentation is short, so clarity matters. In this category, 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 in this category. Since the jury and the Sustainista team may review projects after the live presentation, each team needs to make its work understandable and verifiable beyond the stage. Good documentation improves fairness because it allows reviewers to distinguish clearly between working functionality, conceptual elements and future ideas.
A compelling presentation can strengthen the overall impression of a project, but it works best when it is backed by substance and supported by clear evidence.
What teams need to submit
To make every project reviewable after the event, each team should prepare a compact but complete submission package. This should include a repository link with the code or no-code build assets and a clear README, a short explanation of the architecture and technology stack, a demo link or short video where relevant, and a one-page summary covering the problem, the solution, the target users, the business model and the expected impact. Teams should also include contact details so that follow-up conversations remain possible after the hackathon.
The Saturday evening technology check is directly linked to this documentation requirement. Teams should keep their repositories, demo environments and supporting materials in a review-ready state throughout the event. This will make the check smoother and will help ensure that the final evaluation reflects the actual quality and progress of the build.
Advice for participants
The most successful teams are usually not the ones that simply 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. And most importantly, show how technology, design, process logic and business thinking reinforce one another.
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.
