NIH R03 Success Rate: 17.8% in FY2025, by Institute

The NIH and NSF funding odds tracker shows the same kind of figures for R01s, fellowships and K awards.

For six straight years the R03 was the most predictable number in NIH's success-rate tables, sitting near 22%. FY2025 broke that run. The R03 is still the friendliest of NIH's research grant mechanisms on paper, but the gap between institutes is now wider than the gap between mechanisms.

NIH R03 Success Rate, FY2019 to FY2025

The NIH-wide R03 rate held between 22.1% and 22.9% from FY2019 through FY2024, then fell to 17.8%. These rows come from NIH's success-rate tables (opens in a new tab), table 206.

Applications drove most of the FY2025 change. They rose by 355, to 2,189, while awards slipped by 29. In the R21 the bigger story was falling awards; in the R03 it was more people applying for roughly the same number of slots.

Money moved the other way. Total R03 funding reached $73.7 million in FY2025, the highest in the table, even with the fewest awards. Grantsights analysis of these rows works out to about $189,000 per FY2025 award, against about $154,000 in FY2024 and $136,000 in FY2023. The RePORTER section below shows how much of that comes from paying both years at once.

Every R03 in these years was a new application. The "all types" and "new" rows are identical in each year, so there's no renewal effect hiding in the rate.

R03 Versus R21 and R01 in FY2025

The R03 led NIH's three common research mechanisms in FY2025: 17.8% against 10.9% for the R21 and 9.9% for new R01s (3,405 of 34,491), all from table 206.

The R03's advantage is real but has a cost. In RePORTER, the median first-year direct cost on single-year R03 awards was $50,000 in FY2025 and $75,000 in FY2026. At those sizes, an R03 pays for a focused pilot, a secondary data analysis or a small methods study, not a lab. The R03 small grant program guide explains what fits.

Applicants often underestimate one more point: the R03 pool is small. NIH reviewed 2,189 R03 applications in FY2025 against 13,316 R21s. A few hundred extra applicants move the R03 rate a lot, which is what happened. Compare the NIH R21 success rate and the NIH R01 success rate data before choosing.

R03 Success Rate by Institute, FY2024 and FY2025

The FY2025 R03 rate ranged from 0.0% to 53.8% among institutes that reviewed 20 or more applications. Each row below is matched by institute name from table 206; "under 20" means NIH's table didn't list that institute for the year at this threshold.

Three institutes reviewed more than 250 R03 applications in FY2025: NIA, NCI and NICHD. All three funded between 11.3% and 13.3%, roughly one in eight. They also account for 953 of NIH's 2,189 applications, so their drop weighs heavily on the NIH-wide rate.

Where R03 Odds Moved Most

Grantsights compared each institute's FY2024 and FY2025 rows. Among institutes with at least 50 applications in both years, these were the largest moves:

For example, NICHD received 253 R03 applications in FY2025, almost the same as its 256 the year before, and funded 33 rather than 58. The drop came from fewer awards, not a flood of new applicants. NIA's case is the opposite mix: applications rose by 31 and awards fell by 24. The NIA payline page covers that institute's wider FY2026 policy.

NHLBI's 53.8% looks remarkable, and it is: 28 awards from 52 applications. But NHLBI's pool shrank from 68 to 52, and a small pool can swing hard in a year. The NHLBI payline page has its R01 picture. NIDDK is the steadier high performer: above 30% in both years on 95 applications each time. See the NIDDK payline for its R01 rules.

NHGRI funding 0 of 49 is a red flag for genomics pilots. One year isn't a trend, but it's worth a call to an NHGRI program officer before submitting an R03 there.

FY2026 R03 Award Records

RePORTER shows 429 new R03 award records in FY2026, up from 392 in FY2025 and close to FY2024's 432. Grantsights analysis of the NIH RePORTER API, pulled November 8, 2026:

In FY2025 and FY2026, about two in three new R03s carried both years of money at once. That matches the Data Book's jump in R03 spending per award, and NIH's FY2025 by-the-numbers post (opens in a new tab) said NIH-wide changes "were likely due in part to more awards being forward funded than previous years." The FY2026 fiscal policy notice (opens in a new tab) covers current rules. Grantsights reports the FY2026 rise in the single-year median, from $50,000 to $75,000, without assigning a cause.

By administering institute, the FY2026 counts were led by NIAID (49), NIDDK (48), NIDCR (46) and NHLBI (46). A few institutes nearly vanished from the R03 record: NIAMS had 2 records, the Office of the Director 2 and NIAAA 1. AHRQ had 10 in FY2024 and 0 in each of the next two years. School, state and award-level detail is on the NIH R03 award history page.

These are award records, not rates. RePORTER can't show how many R03 applications each institute reviewed in FY2026, and Grantsights doesn't estimate it. Data Book rates for FY2026 aren't published yet.

What the R03 Success Rate Doesn't Tell You

Table 206 reports 1 R03 rate per institute per year. Four questions stay open:

The common mistake is reading a high R03 rate as an invitation. An institute with a 50% rate on 52 applications may be funding R03s through a narrow set of notices, not taking any small project that fits its mission. Read the participating organizations list in the R03 notice you plan to use, and confirm with program staff that your topic belongs there.

The rate also doesn't capture the budget trade-off. An R03 that fails because the aims need more money than the mechanism allows isn't a bad application, just the wrong mechanism. If the work needs two full years of staff, the R21 or a small R01 may fit better despite lower odds.

Under NIH's success rate definition (opens in a new tab), an application and its resubmission in the same fiscal year count once, and unscored applications are part of the denominator. A discussed R03 had better odds than 17.8%, though NIH doesn't publish that figure.

Is an R03 Worth It in 2026?

At 17.8% in FY2025, the R03 still funded nearly one application in five NIH-wide, better than the R21 or a new R01. The honest answer is that it's worth it when three things line up: the project is small enough for a pilot budget, the institute you'd request funded R03s at or above the NIH average, and the result feeds a larger application you already plan to write.

It's not worth it as a consolation prize. An R03 takes a full application, a study section review and, often, a resubmission. If the realistic payoff is a first-year direct budget in the $50,000 to $75,000 range and the data won't support a bigger grant, the time may be better spent on the R01 or R21 itself.

For a first-time applicant, the best bet is usually an institute where the R03 rate held up in FY2025 and where the program officer confirms the topic fits. NIAID is a useful middle case: 23.2% on 198 applications in FY2025, above the NIH average and on a pool large enough to trust.

Pick the R03 or Another Route: Decision Table

For career-stage options alongside a small grant, see the K award success rates by institute. Pilot and seed funding from foundations and other agencies is searchable in Grantsights grant search.

Sources

• NIH Data Book table 206, research project grant rates by activity code: report.nih.gov success-rate tables (opens in a new tab)
• NIH success rate definition (opens in a new tab)
• NIH, Fiscal Year 2025 By the Numbers (opens in a new tab)
• NOT-OD-26-059, Notice of Fiscal Policies in Effect for FY 2026 (opens in a new tab)
• NIH RePORTER (opens in a new tab) and the RePORTER API (opens in a new tab)

Related Guides

• NIH R03 award history
• NIH R03 small grant program
• NIH R21 success rate
• NIH R01 success rate data
• NIH paylines explained