Skip to main content
AcademicWingsSTEM discovery
Institution profile

Université Grenoble Alpes

FranceEurope

#321

QS World University Rankings 2026

43.4

QS 2026 overall score

QS World University Rankings data

Ranking data

QS World University Rankings source

#321

QS World University Rankings 2026

#334

QS World University Rankings 2025

43.4

QS 2026 overall score

QS 2026 indicators

Indicator-level data

Each card keeps the QS 2026 score and rank separate. A missing value is not estimated.

Academic reputation

QS 2026 score
55.3
QS 2026 rank
#200

Employer reputation

QS 2026 score
19.2
QS 2026 rank
#679

Faculty-student ratio

QS 2026 score
10.4
QS 2026 rank
#801

Citations per faculty

QS 2026 score
51.8
QS 2026 rank
#365

International faculty ratio

QS 2026 score
30.9
QS 2026 rank
#579

International student ratio

QS 2026 score
47.9
QS 2026 rank
#421

International student diversity

QS 2026 score
52.7
QS 2026 rank
#390

International research network

QS 2026 score
94.1
QS 2026 rank
#97

Employment outcomes

QS 2026 score
31.8
QS 2026 rank
#529

Sustainability

QS 2026 score
60
QS 2026 rank
#502
University profile

About Université Grenoble Alpes

Laboratories and major facilities shape the Grenoble research landscape

Université Grenoble Alpes describes research through laboratories, research departments, major projects, facilities, international networks, and technology-transfer routes. Its public research page identifies a structure of laboratories organised across six research departments and supported by laboratory and equipment initiatives. It also names five large international research infrastructures in Grenoble: ESRF, ILL, EMBL, GHMLF, and IRAM. This is useful evidence of a research environment with different scales of activity. A topic may begin with a university department, require a facility, and involve an external research organisation. The appropriate comparison needs to show which of those layers actually matters for the question.

The university's research material presents work across scientific, technological, and social questions, while its central site shows the wider academic structure of schools, faculties, institutes, and research units. That breadth should encourage a narrower search rather than a broad claim. A problem involving materials, health, climate, computation, or design can move through different laboratories and infrastructures. The key is to identify the research object first. Then ask whether the relevant evidence comes from a measurement facility, a laboratory, a data source, a clinical setting, a field site, or a design process. This keeps an impressive research landscape connected to a checkable academic setting.

Health, design, and international infrastructure reveal different routes

A recent university example is the Centre de recherche en santé intégrée, or CReSI, on the health campus at La Tronche. The centre brings researchers, clinicians, engineers, technology platforms, and innovation actors into one building. Its stated scientific priorities are health technologies, chronic diseases, and ageing and autonomy. This example shows why a health topic should not be described only as medical or technological. The relevant research setting may include clinical work, engineering, a platform, and a specific patient or population question. Each element needs to be verified from the local centre or laboratory material before it becomes part of a profile.

The university also makes projects such as Design/buildLAB visible alongside research facilities and international laboratories. Design/buildLAB points toward a different mode of inquiry, where design, construction, materials, and the built environment may meet. International infrastructure has another role: it can make advanced instruments and large-scale collaborative work part of a research path. These routes are not interchangeable. A researcher interested in health technology, architectural experimentation, or a physical-science measurement should identify the setting closest to the work rather than using the same general language for all three. The public map is valuable precisely because it reveals these differences.

Use a Grenoble evidence path that respects the scale of the work

A sound Université Grenoble Alpes comparison starts by naming the level at which the question belongs. It may be a laboratory problem, a facility-dependent measurement, a clinical collaboration, a design experiment, or a networked project. Add one named unit, facility, or project and describe the link with an object of enquiry, method, instrument, population, material, or environment. The research site also points to international laboratories, innovation support, and graduate-school routes. These can supply useful context, but they should not replace the specific project or group where the research activity is clearly explained.

Finish by recording what requires a closer source. A facility can show potential access to specialised work while the relevant laboratory relationship remains unconfirmed. A project may fit the topic while the current phase or method is not explicit. That restraint is important in a research setting with many layers and partners. Université Grenoble Alpes provides visible paths through laboratories, departments, infrastructures, health research, design activity, and international collaboration. A compact evidence trail makes that complex environment easier to compare without overstating a university-wide page.

Institution record

Country
France
Region
Europe
Status
Public
QS size code
XL
Profile record updated
July 24, 2026

This date shows when this profile was refreshed. It is not a source-verification date from QS or the university.

Search opportunities

Opportunity records may use a different form of the institution's name. Confirm every listing with its original source.