QS ranking profile
Cardiff University
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
- #181
- Up 5 places since 2025
- QS 2025 rank
- #186
- Overall score
- 57.8
Explore opportunities at Cardiff University
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.
#175 worldwide
#223 worldwide
#403 worldwide
#451 worldwide
#243 worldwide
#278 worldwide
#248 worldwide
#120 worldwide
#502 worldwide
#71 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
- Focused
- Teaches a limited range of faculty areas
- Research intensity
- Very high
- Very high research output in the QS classification
- Region
- Europe
- QS regional grouping
University profile
About Cardiff University
Editorial background written for orientation. Verify programs, funding, and admission on the university's official pages.
Cardiff research pages link public challenges, disciplinary work, specialist facilities, and partner activity
Cardiff University presents routes for research, innovation and impact, research stories, schools, subject areas, specialist facilities, researchers, and partnerships. They are useful entry points but serve different evidential roles. A story introduces a concrete question. A school or subject route identifies an academic setting. A facility page describes a technical environment. A researcher page can link public expertise to a person. A partnership route can show an external relationship. None alone establishes the full method, materials, or scope of every project.
Cardiff's research page describes work across disciplines and with industry and government partners, while framing its public research around questions such as climate change, health inequality, technological disruption, and democratic instability. These themes give a reader useful context, but they are not interchangeable research objects. A climate question may concern food systems, a location, an environmental process, a dataset, or a public decision. A health question can concern a biological mechanism, a clinical context, an intervention, a service, or an inequality measure. A technology question may centre on a device, model, interface, infrastructure, or user practice. The next source should clarify which of those objects is actually being examined.
Climate and diet, brain imaging, neurotherapies, building materials, language, and play need distinct evidence
The public Cardiff stories make that distinction visible. One describes advanced data analysis and global food-system modelling in work on links between climate and diet. Another concerns neuroimaging and the effort to make research-grade brain investigation more accessible to scientists in lower-income settings. The research page also highlights work on gene, RNA, and cell therapies for neuro-degenerative conditions, as well as a project using Welsh wool in sustainable building design. These examples do not point to one general method. A food-system question may require model assumptions, datasets, environmental variables, and health outcomes. A neuroimaging question may involve an imaging tool, brain measure, technical protocol, and interpretation. A building-materials question can require a material, design setting, performance measure, and testing process.
Other Cardiff stories introduce research on wildlife protection, colorectal cancer vaccines, Welsh pronunciation using MRI, disinformation, and pretend play in parent-child interactions. Each has a recognisable object and setting. A wildlife question may need species information, habitat data, conservation practice, or field observations. A language question can use speech recordings, imaging, learner experience, or phonetic analysis. A disinformation question may depend on messages, platforms, documents, social context, or observed effects. A child-development question might use interactions, participant accounts, recordings, or carefully defined measures. The news stories are strong discovery cues, yet a reader should continue to the closest project, centre, researcher, or publication record before drawing a precise conclusion about research activity.
Cardiff questions become clearer after naming an object and locating an explanatory record
A focused Cardiff University search begins by turning a broad theme into a question that can be checked. Name the object, such as a food-system model, brain image, treatment approach, building material, endangered species, language sound, online message, or play interaction. Then name the setting and the material needed for investigation. Depending on the question, that may include datasets, models, images, samples, instruments, texts, maps, records, interviews, observations, or participant accounts. This preparation helps a reader choose the next public route for a reason: a facility for a technical setting, a school for an academic context, a story for an initial clue, or a research record for a specific activity.
The official Cardiff pages establish a broad research setting, public examples of work, and routes toward people, subjects, facilities, innovation, and partnerships. They do not confirm that every associated topic is active in a named unit, that a broad challenge determines a method, or that a public story provides the whole evidence base. The most reliable conclusion comes from a local official record that identifies the selected object and gives enough detail about the research context. When only a related theme is visible, it remains a useful direction for later review rather than proof of a particular research match. This keeps the Cardiff University profile practical and faithful to the level of detail available in the public evidence.