Rankings & Accreditation Consulting
Independent consulting for universities and business schools. We find where your performance is under-reported, build the data and evidence behind improvement, and prepare you for QS, THE and ARWU and for AACSB, EQUIS, ABET and FIBAA accreditation.
What we do
We help institutions improve how they perform in university rankings and prepare for accreditation. Both depend on the same foundation — accurate institutional data and well-organised evidence — so work on one usually strengthens the other.
Position is decided by a small number of weighted indicators, most of which depend on data you already hold but may not report well.
We help you organise evidence against the standard and keep it current, so each review builds on the last rather than starting again.
Core services
A complete, indicator-by-indicator view of where your ranking position is decided, and which improvements would have the greatest effect.
You receive
An independent assessment of your current evidence against the standard: what is already in place, what is missing, and a realistic timeline to submission.
You receive
Turns a target into a sequenced plan with owners, milestones and honest timelines.
You receive
A rehearsal of the peer review, with the questions reviewers actually ask.
You receive
How an engagement works
Start with the free five-minute Health Check, or a short discovery call (30–45 minutes). Either one gives us a first view of where you stand.
You receive: A readiness level and an initial conversation
We establish your baseline: indicator by indicator for rankings, standard by standard for accreditation, against a relevant peer group.
You receive: A gap map, data quality findings and an evidence inventory
We turn the findings into a sequenced plan, separating what can improve this cycle from what takes longer.
You receive: A phased roadmap with owners, milestones and resourcing
Advisory sessions, workshops and mock reviews while your own teams carry out the plan.
You receive: Scheduled guidance, training and review rehearsals
We track progress against the indicators that matter and adjust as methodologies and priorities change.
You receive: Regular progress reviews and a refreshed plan
Framework decoder
Different ranking systems measure institutional performance differently. We help universities understand these differences, identify the rankings most relevant to their strategic priorities, and turn each methodology into specific, measurable institutional actions.
Times Higher Education weights research quality and teaching almost equally, with research environment close behind. International outlook and industry income carry comparatively little.
THE World University Rankings 2027 methodology, reviewed October 2026. Official methodology ↗
Quacquarelli Symonds leans heavily on reputation surveys. Academic and employer reputation together carry 45% of the score, so nearly half of a QS position reflects how an institution is perceived rather than what it produces.
QS World University Rankings 2027 methodology, reviewed September 2026. Official methodology ↗
The Academic Ranking of World Universities uses no surveys at all. Awards, highly cited researchers and top-tier publications decide position, which makes it the hardest to influence quickly.
ARWU 2026 methodology, reviewed October 2026. Official methodology ↗
A summary for orientation, not a substitute for the publisher's own methodology — confirm the current edition before acting on it. See all frameworks and bodies
Who we help
Presidents, provosts and vice-chancellors setting institutional direction and answerable for position.
Academic leaders preparing programme accreditation or lifting subject-level standing.
QA teams running accreditation cycles and institutional effectiveness.
Staff responsible for submissions, data collection and year-on-year tracking.
IR professionals owning data governance, reporting and the evidence base.
Cross-functional teams turning institutional ambition into measurable plans.
What changes
Not a promised position — no consultant controls that. These are the things that reliably improve when the underlying work is done properly.
Institutional data that is accurate, complete and reportable without a scramble each cycle.
Better standing in the global, regional and subject tables that actually reward your strengths.
Submissions that succeed, and systems that keep succeeding at renewal.
A repository that answers an assessor rather than being assembled for one.
Collection, validation and reporting that stop consuming the same effort twice.
A shared, accurate understanding of position across governance and leadership.
How we work in practice
Composite scenarios drawn from situations institutions commonly face. They show how we approach the work; they are not client results.
Five years in the same QS band while research funding rose steadily. Leadership could not explain the gap between investment and position.
A private business school in EuropeAn initial review that did not succeed, citing unstructured Assurance of Learning and insufficient academically qualified faculty.
An emerging technical institute in AsiaNo international recognition and an ambition to attract overseas STEM students within three years.
University Health Check
A structured self-assessment across the indicators that decide ranking position and the systems accreditors expect to find. You get a readiness level immediately and a considered follow-up from us. About five minutes, completely confidential.
No. Ranking organisations make ranking decisions and accreditors make accreditation decisions. What we can do is make sure your performance is accurately recorded, correctly attributed and properly reported — which is where most institutions lose position they have already earned.
Ranking positions move over cycles, not months, and accreditation is typically a multi-year process. A data and attribution audit can show results within one submission cycle. Anything structural takes longer, and we will say so before you commit.
No. They are composites based on situations institutions commonly face, written to show how we work, and we say so on the page. We hold client relationships in confidence; any real case study we publish will be clearly labelled as one and shared only with the client’s permission.
No. We are an independent consultancy with no relationship to any ranking organisation or accreditation body, which means nothing we recommend is shaped by one.
That is usually the best time. Most of the expensive mistakes we see come from institutions targeting an outcome before the underlying data and evidence can support it.
Engagements are scoped and quoted individually, because the starting point varies enormously. There is no charge for a discovery call or a Health Check.
UniRanking is an independent consulting firm. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected to any ranking organisation or accreditation body. All ranking decisions are made by ranking organisations, and all accreditation decisions are made by accrediting bodies. We help institutions prepare — we do not influence outcomes.
A discovery call is a straightforward conversation about your position, your targets and whether we are the right people to help.