NIH R21 Success Rate: 10.9% in FY2025, by Institute

Institute-by-institute odds for other mechanisms are in the NIH and NSF funding odds tracker.

The R21 has a reputation as the easier NIH grant. The Data Book doesn't support that in recent years, and in FY2025 the institute you land at mattered far more than the choice between R21 and R01.

NIH R21 Success Rate, FY2019 to FY2025

From FY2019 to FY2024 the NIH-wide R21 rate ran between 15.1% and 18.3%. FY2025 fell to 10.9%, the lowest in the seven years below. All rows are from NIH's success-rate tables (opens in a new tab), table 206.

Both sides moved against applicants in FY2025. Applications rose by 1,724 and awards fell by 383. The funding column tells the rest: NIH spent $506.5 million on R21s in FY2025, almost exactly FY2024's $506.0 million, but spread it over fewer grants. Grantsights analysis of these rows puts the average at about $348,000 per FY2025 award, against about $275,000 a year earlier. The RePORTER section below shows why.

Almost all R21 applications are new. Renewals and revisions added only 3 applications in FY2020 and 5 in FY2021, so the "new" and "all types" rates are effectively the same number.

How NIH Counts an R21 Success

The FY2025 denominator of 13,316 is every R21 application NIH reviewed that year, scored or not. Under NIH's success rate definition (opens in a new tab), an application and its resubmission that both arrive in the same fiscal year count once. That keeps a quick A1 from inflating the denominator, but it also means the rate isn't the chance that any single submission gets funded.

Two consequences follow:

• Discussed applications did better than 10.9%. Applications that were never discussed at study section still sit in the denominator, so the rate for discussed applications is higher. NIH doesn't publish that figure.
• The rate isn't a score threshold. It says nothing about which percentile got funded at a given institute, and institutes no longer publish one.

R21 Versus R01: About 1 Point Apart

In FY2025, NIH funded 10.9% of R21 applications and 9.9% of new R01 applications (3,405 of 34,491), according to NIH Data Book table 206. In FY2024 the figures were 15.8% and 14.9%. The R21 advantage has been about one percentage point in both years.

Applicants who pick the R21 for its odds tend to underestimate how small that gap is. An R21 is a two-year award with a smaller budget: the median first-year direct cost on single-year R21 awards in RePORTER was $150,000 in FY2026. For comparison, the FY2026 median for new single-year NIBIB R01s was $398,285. If both mechanisms fund about one application in ten, the R21 buys less money and less time at nearly the same odds.

The R21 still makes sense when the project really is exploratory, when you lack the preliminary data an R01 panel expects, or when the R21 grant guide describes your project better than the R01 does. It's a poor choice if the main reason is a belief that R21s are easy. For the R01 side of the comparison, see the NIH R01 success rate data.

R21 Success Rate by Institute, FY2024 and FY2025

The FY2025 R21 rate ranged from 1.1% to 26.0% across the 25 institutes that reviewed at least 20 applications. Institutes are listed by FY2025 application volume; all figures come from table 206.

NIAID alone reviewed 2,955 R21 applications in FY2025, more than a fifth of the NIH total, and funded 429 of them. Its 14.5% rate held up better than most large institutes. NCI and NIA together reviewed 3,583 applications and funded fewer than one in twelve.

Only three institutes improved: NHLBI (16.8% to 19.0%), NIDCR (18.4% to 20.6%) and NCATS (9.6% to 13.3%). Every other institute in the table fell.

Where R21 Odds Fell Hardest in FY2025

Grantsights compared the FY2024 and FY2025 rows for each institute. Five drops stand out because the pools are large enough that they aren't one-award noise:

For example, NIA received 1,593 R21 applications in FY2025, 252 more than the year before, and made 117 fewer awards. That single institute accounts for almost a third of the NIH-wide drop of 383 awards. If your R21 fits NIA, the NIA payline page covers that institute's FY2026 rules.

NIMHD's 1.1% is the starkest number in the table: 2 awards from 187 applications. It's a red flag for anyone planning an R21 there, though one year isn't a trend, and the FY2026 award records below show NIMHD back at 16 new R21s.

FY2026 R21 Awards: 2,014 Records, Most Paid Up Front

RePORTER lists 2,014 new FY2026 R21 award records, up from 1,521 in FY2025. Grantsights analysis of the NIH RePORTER API, pulled November 8, 2026, also split those records by how NIH paid them:

A multi-year funded R21 carries both years of money in one fiscal year. In FY2024, about one in four new R21s was paid that way; by FY2026 it was about two in three. That helps explain how NIH's FY2025 R21 spending stayed flat while awards fell. NIH's FY2025 by-the-numbers post (opens in a new tab) said changes "were likely due in part to more awards being forward funded than previous years," and the FY2026 fiscal policy notice (opens in a new tab) sets the current rules.

The FY2026 rise was concentrated. By administering institute, RePORTER counts:

NIAID's 612 new FY2026 records are about 30% of the total. NIA (243) passed its FY2024 count, and NIAMS (56) came close to its own. NIDDK went the other way, with 3 records. Grantsights reports that figure without a cause; check the R21 notice you plan to use to confirm NIDDK still participates.

Two cautions. First, RePORTER and the Data Book count differently: the Data Book shows 1,454 FY2025 R21 awards, RePORTER 1,521 records. Second, 2,014 awards isn't a success rate. If FY2026 applications rose as they did in FY2025, the rate could stay low even with more awards. NIH hasn't published FY2026 Data Book rates, and Grantsights doesn't project them. Award lists, top schools and states are on the R21 award history page.

When R21 Awards Go Out

In FY2026, 455 new R21 notices went out in August and 328 in September, about 39% of the year's records in the last two months. July (275), June (263) and May (238) followed. A quiet stretch after council isn't a rejection, but it shouldn't stop you from preparing an A1 if your summary statement points to fixable problems. The resubmission guide covers that step.

What the R21 Success Rate Doesn't Tell You

Table 206 gives 1 R21 rate per institute per year. It leaves at least 4 questions applicants care about unanswered:

A common mistake is choosing an institute from this table alone. NIH assigns applications by mission fit. The table helps you decide between two institutes that both fit your science, not pick one that doesn't. The score explainer covers how a percentile turns into a funding decision now that NIH's funding decisions page (opens in a new tab) says institutes no longer use score cutoffs.

The rate also hides targeted notices. An R21 submitted to a narrow initiative competes in a different pool than a parent R21, and the table blends them. If a targeted notice fits, it's worth asking the listed program officer how many applications it drew.

One more thing the rate can't show is whether reviewers saw your project as exploratory. An R21 that reads like a scaled-down R01 fails because it doesn't match the mechanism, whatever the institute's rate.

Choose the Mechanism and Institute: Decision Table

Institute pages with more detail include the NIAID R01 success rate, the NCI payline and the NHLBI payline. Funding for pilot and exploratory work outside NIH is searchable in Grantsights grant search.

Sources

• NIH Data Book success-rate tables (opens in a new tab) (table 206, data last updated February 18, 2026)
• NIH success rate definition (opens in a new tab)
• NIH funding decisions and the Unified Funding Strategy (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 R21 award history
• NIH R21 grant guide
• NIH R01 success rate data
• NIH R03 success rate
• NIH paylines explained