QS ranking profile
ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)
This page presents clearly labeled QS ranking data for orientation. It does not verify programs, supervisors, funding, admission requirements, or the university's website.
- QS 2026 rank
- #7
- No change since 2025
- QS 2025 rank
- #7
- Overall score
- 96.7
Explore opportunities at ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)
Browse active research positions, doctoral fellowships, and university funding calls indexed from official faculties and verified sources.
QS indicators
Reported ranking indicators
Each indicator is scored out of 100 in the same QS snapshot as the summary above.
#18 worldwide
#42 worldwide
#214 worldwide
#40 worldwide
#28 worldwide
#58 worldwide
#241 worldwide
#64 worldwide
#76 worldwide
#2 worldwide
Institution profile
How QS classifies this institution
QS groups institutions by size, subject range, and research output.
- Size
- Large
- About 12,000 to 30,000 students
- Subject range
- Full comprehensive
- All main faculty areas, including a medical school
- Research intensity
- Very high
- Very high research output in the QS classification
- Region
- Europe
- QS regional grouping
University profile
About ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology)
Editorial background written for orientation. Verify programs, funding, and admission on the university's official pages.
Departments offer a detailed starting map
ETH Zurich lists departments across architecture; civil, environmental and geomatic engineering; biosystems science and engineering; computer science; information technology and electrical engineering; materials; mechanical and process engineering; biology; chemistry and applied biosciences; mathematics; physics; earth and planetary sciences; health sciences and technology; environmental systems science; management, technology and economics; and humanities, social and political sciences. This range is useful as an index rather than as proof that a broad topic has one home. A question about climate modelling, for example, might have a different academic base from a question about environmental governance, even when both use similar language. Begin by naming the core problem, then identify the department whose disciplinary tools are closest to it.
Department names give the first layer of orientation, but they are not the whole research picture. A technical question may draw on a second field, a shared facility, or an initiative that brings groups together. Read the relevant departmental material alongside the pages of laboratories, centres, and people working nearest to the subject. Notice whether the visible work is experimental, computational, design-led, theoretical, or mixed. That comparison helps separate a real methodological connection from a loose association created by a familiar keyword. It also makes later conversations and personal planning more specific, because the research setting is defined before the institution is treated as a single undifferentiated option.
Research services connect work across the institution
ETH Zurich's research material makes several shared layers visible: competence centres, cross-cutting initiatives, infrastructure, data management, publication services, scientific IT, and guidance connected with research ethics and scientific integrity. These are signs of an institutional framework around research, not a description of the day-to-day practice in every laboratory. Their practical value is that they show what to investigate next. If a project depends on complex data, specialised computing, human participants, or a particular experimental environment, the central structure can point toward the local unit where those questions become concrete.
The same pages make room for work that connects science with society, industry, and public questions. That breadth should be read carefully. It can explain why some research crosses disciplinary boundaries, but it does not establish the scope of a particular group or project. Look instead for a recent project page, a laboratory description, or a researcher profile that states the object of study and the approach. Write down the evidence in plain terms: the scientific question, the method, the relevant department, and the resource or collaboration that matters. This creates a useful record without filling gaps with assumptions about an entire institution.
Turn an ETH Zurich interest into a focused comparison
A strong ETH Zurich comparison begins with a narrow question that can be recognised in public research material. It may concern a model, a material, a biological system, a design challenge, a dataset, or a policy problem with a technical dimension. Match that question to one department and then seek two pieces of local evidence, such as a laboratory's current work and a researcher whose methods relate to your own preparation. If the link rests only on a broad field label such as AI, energy, or health, keep the note provisional until a clearer academic link appears.
Use the university-wide structure to understand where disciplines meet, while allowing the closest research pages to carry the most weight. A careful note can state what is confirmed, what remains uncertain, and what information needs a fresh check. That discipline is especially important in a large institution with many possible routes through related subjects. It keeps attention on the fit between a real research environment and the work you want to develop, rather than on a general impression created by scale or reputation. Revisit the note when a department, laboratory, or researcher publishes more current material.