Eurovision 2025: Jury Results Analysis

Half of the result of the Grand Final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2025 was decided by the votes of each participating country’s national jury, a panel of five music industry ‘experts’ selected by the country’s broadcaster. According to Eurovision rules, jurors should rank the competing songs using their professional skill and experience, with the sole reference for their judgement being the performance of the acts during the second dress rehearsal. The official rules also state that jurors should be free from all external influences, including betting odds. The extent to which this can be ensured in the digital age is possibly up for debate, and you only need to look back to the jury scandal of 2022 to see that the system is far from perfect, but I am of the belief that the presence of juries is necessary in Eurovision.

In the interests of transparency, the EBU releases each jury’s full ranking of the competing songs after the contest has taken place, as well as the ranking of each individual juror. Whilst the identities of jurors are also made public, it is not specified which ranking belongs to which juror, with jurors instead being identified as A-E. With 37 participating countries, we should have had 185 jurors voting in this year’s final; however, 2023 contestant Alika Milova was removed from the Estonian jury due to a breach of the rules, leaving just four jurors to decide the country’s result, and 184 overall.

With all this data readily available, there is so much to look at in these results – undoubtedly I could have gone further in my analysis but I had to stop somewhere! In this article, I will look at historical jury voting trends, before giving a general overview of where the votes went this year and diving a little deeper to examine a few interesting cases and anomalies. So without any further ado, let’s have a look at the data.

First of all, a bit of context. National juries, in their current form, were re-introduced to Eurovision in 2009, largely as a result of growing displeasure among Western European nations with the televote-only voting system in place at the time. Since then, results have generally been determined using a 50/50 ratio of juries and televoters (however, different systems have been used in semi-finals). This was initially calculated by combining the two rankings into one set of points, however, since 2016, the results have been counted separately.

Since the re-introduction of juries, we have seen a few different trends emerge in how they have voted, and particularly in the agreement of the jury with the televote. In the first few years of 50/50 voting, both sides generally agreed on a winner, with Norway, Germany, Sweden, Denmark* and Austria all being selected by both the experts and the public. However, only once since 2014 have we seen a unanimous verdict (that was, of course, Salvador Sobral’s landslide victory in 2017), meaning that in recent years we have often had jury favourites in competition with the people’s champions.

In the ten years since 2009 in which there has been a ‘split decision’, the jury favourite has triumphed in four, the televote’s choice has also won in four, whilst the last two were taken by a so-called ‘compromise winner’ (a country that won neither side of the vote). Of the winning songs that did not win the jury vote, two finished second, two finished third, and two fourth; so the jury is clearly still able to exert influence. The table below highlights every winning song since 2009 and its performance in the jury vote.

* 2013 is excluded from most of my analysis as the EBU has never released a full split result from that year. All we know is the average ranking of each country from both the jury and the televote, and Denmark was highest in both of these areas.

Since the introduction of televote-only semi-finals in 2023, the winner of the jury vote has taken the overall title every year, and Loreen and Nemo both achieved record-breaking jury scores in several ways, including both average points per voting country and percentage of available points received. Whilst JJ didn’t quite match up to that this year, his score of 7.17 PPC still beats most previous winners, and scoring 59.72% of the maximum possible score is nothing to be sniffed at.

One side effect of this new jury dominance (and therefore probably another consequence of televote-only semi-finals) is that the last three winners have had some of the most one-sided results since 2009. That is to say that Loreen, Nemo and JJ have scored a greater proportion of their points from the juries than any other winner in this period, with Nemo’s 61.76% remaining unbeaten for now. The most ‘even’ winner (i.e. the winner that had the smallest gap between their jury and televote scores) is Portugal’s Salvador Sobral, who dominated both sides of the voting.

Looking now at jury winners since 2009, we get a slightly different picture. As I said before, in the earlier years of the split system, the jury and televote tended to agree a bit more, so the jury winners and overall winners are one and the same, however, from 2018-2022, this was reversed and the jury favourite never quite managed to get over the line. This is largely down to the closeness of the jury vote in these years, with none of the jury winners from this period managing to achieve a lead greater than 10%.

This data shows that JJ’s jury victory, whilst convincing (evidenced by the 10.19% lead over second place), was by no means anything to compare to several previous jury winners, particularly Loreen and Nemo. JJ’s PPC score of 7.17 places him ninth out of fifteen, whilst if we order winners by the percentage of the maximum score they received, JJ ends up eighth. “Wasted Love” only received eight sets of douze points, which highlights a different level of dominance than we saw in 2023 and 2024, when Loreen and Nemo scored 15 and 22 sets respectively, with the same number of participating countries.

We are used to seeing jury winners receiving around 50-70% of the maximum possible score from the jury vote; prior to 2023, the only major outlier was Lena in 2010, whose score of 187 points was only 41.01% of what she could have achieved. However, we have once again seen this change in the last couple of years, with Loreen and Nemo achieving the highest proportional jury scores since the introduction of the 50/50 system, the latter of the two becoming the first contestant to score more than 80% of the maximum possible jury score.

Recent years have also seen record-breaking jury landslides, with Loreen’s “Tattoo” achieving the largest proportional gap between first and second place in the jury vote, with 37.73% of the maximum possible score, whilst Nemo in 2024 came in just behind with 34.03%. This year, JJ’s lead of 10.19%, whilst still relatively large (particularly when compared to those from the 2018-2022 period), doesn’t really come close to challenging either of its immediate predecessors, and is another indicator of the more widely spread voting we saw this year.

The main point I’d like to get across with this analysis of historical trends is that in most years, JJ’s score would not have given him the victory. We are used to seeing a big jury favourite, both the likes of Loreen and Nemo recently and also contestants such as Dami Im and Måns Zelmerlöw, who didn’t achieve such landslide victories but nonetheless won the jury vote by a comfortable margin. This year we didn’t have that. There were several countries who performed well, and a lot of others who didn’t do badly at all. Thirteen countries received at least one set of 12 points, the highest number since 2021. Every country failed to score any points from at least five other countries’ juries. So with all that being said, let’s have a look at the numbers.

As previously mentioned, eventual winners Austria also won the jury vote, scoring 258 points. Given how much I’ve discussed this already, I won’t go into too much more detail, but I will add that JJ scored points from 31 out of a possible 36 juries, and received eight sets of 12 points; both numbers that weren’t beaten by any other competitor this year. Whilst it wasn’t the most impressive jury victory we’ve seen at Eurovision, I would like to emphasise once again that “Wasted Love” topped the table in a way that was both convincing and deserved.

JJ’s closest competition came in the form of host country Switzerland, with “Voyage” scoring 214 points (5.94 PPC). This is by far the best performance in the jury vote for any host entry of recent years, rivalled only by Italy’s Mahmood and Blanco in 2022. Like Austria, Switzerland received points from 31 juries, but only managed to score three maximum marks. However, the country finished in the top three with a further eleven juries, proving the ability of the song to garner widespread appeal across the continent.

The final place on the podium went to France’s Louane, who scored 180 points for “Maman”. This song seemed to get a slightly more varied reception from juries, with five awarding it 12 points (more than Switzerland), and another eight giving it a top three position, yet eleven deciding to give Louane no points at all. Regardless, this is another strong result for France, who have shown in recent years their ability to effectively match the jury voting criteria.

Louane from France finished third in the jury vote of Eurovision 2025. (photo: Alma Bengtsson/EBU)

Next was Lucio Corsi from Italy, with 159 points. Again, this song proved to be a little more divisive, scoring six sets of 12 points (bettered only by Austria), yet only receiving anything from 22 juries out of 36. This lack of agreement among juries and much more widespread voting is only further reflected in the result of the Netherlands, who rounded out the top five with 133 points, yet didn’t score a single douze. Only eight countries ranked Claude in the top three, and thirteen neglected to award “C’est la vie” any points.

Pre-contest favourites Sweden ended up sixth in the jury vote with 126 points. Despite definitely being more of a televote-friendly package, “Bara bada bastu” still managed to score 12 points from Iceland, and received points from 21 countries overall. KAJ were followed by surprise package Tautumeitas from Latvia, who scored 116 points, including three maximum marks. Despite this, “Bur man laimi” failed to score from half of the participating countries, with 18 out of 36 ranking the song outside of the top ten.

Claude performing at Eurovision 2025 for the Netherlands. (photo: Corinne Cumming/EBU)

Eighth place went to Klavdia from Greece, who was the last contestant to break into triple digits, scoring 105 points despite only receiving votes from sixteen countries. Greece scored four sets of 12 points (including one from long-time friends Cyprus) and another two juries ranked the country in the top three. We then move from the sublime to the ridiculous as we come to Tommy Cash from Estonia in ninth place with 98 points. Personally, I think this is far too high, particularly considering the quality of some of the songs that finished below it, but the song clearly achieved a certain degree of widespread appeal, receiving votes from 21 countries – although none of them deemed “Espresso macchiato” worthy of douze points.

The last entry to make it into the top ten, by virtue of winning a tie-break, was the UK’s own Remember Monday, with 88 points. The girls received points from sixteen countries, with three top three rankings and maximum marks from Italy’s iconic Topo Gigio. Also scoring 88 points, yet ranked eleventh overall due to only receiving points from fifteen countries, was Erika Vikman from Finland. This was another song definitely regarded as more televote-friendly, yet it still managed to score 12 points from Austria and another four countries ranked “Ich Komme” in the top three.

Next was Malta, with “Serving” scoring 83 points from fifteen countries, including four top three placements. Then just making it onto the left-hand side of the board was Germany’s Abor & Tynna, who scored 77 points. Germany received points from fourteen out of 36 juries, including two sets of 12 points and another three top three results. If you still need more evidence of how spread out this year’s results were, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that last year Olly Alexander finished thirteenth in the jury vote for the UK, yet even with less competition in the final (thanks to the disqualification of the Netherlands) only scored 46 points as so many were hoovered up by the countries at the top, particularly Switzerland.

Germany's Abor & Tynna at Eurovision 2025. (photo: Alma Bengtsson/EBU)

Next up was another tie-break winner in the form of Ukraine, who scored 60 points and received votes from sixteen countries. Israel’s Yuval Raphael also scored 60 points, including a douze points from Azerbaijan, yet only received points from fourteen countries overall. Following them was another tie, won by Shkodra Elektronike for Albania. In what I consider to be a travesty of justice, “Zjerm” only received 45 points from the juries, although France did award it 12 points. 45 points also went to Denmark, yet Sissal only received points from seven countries compared to Albania’s ten.

Parg from Armenia finished in eighteenth place with the juries, scoring 42 points and receiving votes from ten countries. Armenia also became the lowest-ranked country to receive douze points, which came from Malta. Portugal were next, scoring 37 points from nine different countries, though not managing to make it into the top three with any of them. Just behind Napa were Katarsis from Lithuania, who scored 34 points but also failed to reach the top three in all of the seven countries that voted for them. Melody from Spain scored 27 points, including 10 from Albania.

Luxembourg’s Laura Thorn was next with 23 points, receiving votes from seven different countries. She was closely followed by Kyle Alessandro from Norway who scored 22 points, also from seven countries. Entering the bottom three, Poland scored 17 points from seven countries, with Justyna’s highest vote being 5 points from Australia. San Marino only scored 9 points from the juries, receiving points from just three countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Italy contributed the majority of this score, awarding “Tutta L’Italia” 6 points.

Finally, bringing up the rear was Iceland, who very sadly failed to score any points from the jury vote. This makes Væb the first Eurovision contestant to score the dreaded nul from the juries since Malik Harris in 2022, for Germany. However, it wasn’t a complete washout; “Róa” finished thirteenth with both Denmark and Finland, and fourteen juries in total ranked the song inside the top twenty. Whilst I am disappointed for the boys, I understand why this didn’t appeal to juries as it did feel somewhat messier than most of the other performances on the night.

Iceland scored nul points from the jury vote in Eurovision 2025. (photo: Alma Bengtsson/EBU)

Let’s now have a closer look at the entries each jury chose as its favourite. I covered this briefly above in discussing where the maximum marks were going, but I’ll share once again that thirteen countries received at least one set of 12 points from the jury vote; notably higher than the last few years. Austria received the most, with eight, followed by Italy with six, France with five and Greece with four. Latvia and Switzerland both received three douze points, Germany received two and Albania, Armenia, Finland, Israel, Sweden and the United Kingdom each received one.

Whilst Austria scored well across the continent, the image above hopefully illustrates that the song generally received its highest marks from Western European nations. Of the eight countries to give JJ 12 points, only Latvia could really be considered Eastern European; whereas close contenders such as Italy, France and Greece all received douze points from a wider range of sources. This year, we had two pairs of countries engage in reciprocal awarding of the douze, a phenomenon made famous by Greece and Cyprus. However, with Cyprus having failed to qualify to the final, it was instead Albania and France, and Austria and Finland, who shared the love between themselves (Greece’s 12 points instead went to France).

At the other end of the spectrum, despite not receiving any points, Iceland were only ranked last by three juries. It was instead San Marino who earned the unfortunate prize of receiving the most ‘wooden spoons’, with ten out of 36 juries putting “Tutta L’Italia” at the bottom of the pile. Poland received four, Portugal three, Armenia, Finland, Lithuania, Ukraine and the United Kingdom all received two, whilst several other countries were ranked last only once, including overall winner Austria, put last by the Italian jury.

The 2025 ‘mutual dislike’ award goes to Malta and Lithuania, each of whom ranked the other last. The award for ‘most ungrateful recipient of 12 points’ goes to both Latvia and Switzerland, who both ranked last a country that gave them the maximum (those being the UK and Poland respectively). In case it wasn’t clear, I would like to clarify that these ‘awards’ are meant to be taken in good humour. Unsurprisingly, Armenia were ranked last by Azerbaijan, being ranked last by all five members of the panel. This was the only instance this year of every juror in a country agreeing on a loser.

I’d now like to look a bit more closely at the individual rankings of the 184 jurors this year and see if any trends emerge. Eurovision jurors are only asked to provide a ranking of all the competing songs (excluding their own country where appropriate), rather than giving each one a score. Each ordinal rank is assigned a score using a pre-determined exponential formula which effectively places more emphasis on higher rankings, strengthening the value of a top ten ranking without entirely ignoring the ranking below the top ten. After the jurors have voted, these scores are added up to work out the overall ranking of the jury.

In practice, this means that a song that divides a jury, earning one very high ranking and four lower rankings, will do better than one that earns moderate support from all jurors. Being placed in a single juror’s top three would likely guarantee you some points from that country, regardless of the other jurors’ opinions (note: likely – we’ll look at the exact statistics later on!), whilst a particularly unfavourable review from one juror wouldn’t necessarily ruin your chances of scoring. This way of calculating an overall jury ranking is, in my view, much more favourable than a simple average of individual rankings, which is far more easily skewed by a juror with a more left-field ranking.

Of the 26 countries participating in this year’s final, twenty were ranked first by at least one juror in one country. This rises to 24 when we consider second-place rankings as well, and every participating country was ranked in at least one juror’s top three. 32 of the 179* jurors ranked eventual winner Austria first, the highest of any country. JJ also received 21 second-place rankings, and 17 jurors placed him third, meaning that a total of 70 jurors (39.11%) ranked “Wasted Love” in their top three. Extending this further, 132 jurors (73.74%) had Austria among their top ten.

* The five Austrian jurors are not included in this figure as they could not vote for their own contestant.

Whilst this is a great achievement, and not bettered by any other country this year, it only serves to show, once again, why JJ’s victory really doesn’t compare to last year’s champion Nemo. “The Code” was ranked first by 71 out of 180 jurors, and in the top three by a total of 123 (68.33%). Only twelve jurors (6.67%) placed Nemo outside of the top ten, compared to 47 for JJ. What’s more, fourteen jurors ranked “Wasted Love” lower than twentieth and three even chose the song as their least favourite of the night: two Georgian jurors and one Italian juror ranked JJ dead last.

The other countries to be ranked first by more than ten jurors were Italy (26), France (17), Switzerland (15), Greece and Sweden (both 14). They were followed by Germany (9), the Netherlands (8), Latvia (7), Armenia, Denmark and Finland (all 6), and Albania, Malta and the UK (all 5). Israel was ranked first by four jurors, whilst Estonia, Lithuania, Norway and Ukraine all earned one ‘gold medal’. The countries not ranked first by a single juror were Iceland, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Spain and San Marino.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, all five Cypriot jurors ranked Greece first and every member of the Sammarinese jury chose Italy as their favourite. France was also ranked first by every Armenian juror. Thirteen other countries had three or more jurors agree on a favourite, and as you would expect, each of these choices received the douze points. I would particularly like to shout-out the juries of Albania, Austria, Czechia, Luxembourg and Sweden; as these were the only juries in which every juror chose a different favourite song, highlighting the variety of taste and opinion that I think we should be seeing more of if the juries are to be truly representative of the music industry.

Austria also picked up the most ‘silver medals’ this year, with no other country surpassing JJ’s tally of 21. Other countries that performed well by this metric were France and Switzerland (both 17), Italy (14), Sweden (13), Finland and the Netherlands (both 12) and Estonia (10), despite the latter only receiving one first-place ranking. It’s perhaps interesting, therefore, to consider whether jurors feel a degree of shame about placing a ‘joke’ song first over some of the more serious offerings on display. Every country received at least one second-place ranking apart from Luxembourg and San Marino.

Switzerland received the most third-place rankings, with 23. France (19), Austria (17), Latvia, the Netherlands and Sweden (10) also performed well. Every country earned at least one ‘bronze medal’, with Luxembourg (5) and San Marino (2) gaining their only podium appearances. The full Eurovision 2025 ‘medal table’ is below, sorted by the number of gold medals, then silver, then bronze. The countries with the most ‘medals’ overall were Austria, Switzerland, France, Italy and Sweden, closely resembling the actual jury top five. Germany, Denmark and Armenia perform much better in the medal table than in the actual results, whilst Estonia suffers the largest fall in positions.

As well as being ranked last by the most juries overall, San Marino also received the most individual juror last-places, with 32 jurors deeming “Tutta L’Italia” the worst song of the night. Other countries with ten or more wooden spoons were Lithuania (18), Israel (15), Iceland (12), Albania (11) and Finland (10); Væb once again showing that their nul points result wasn’t as bad as it seems on the surface. The only countries to avoid being ranked last by any jurors were France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, with Italy just picking up two (both from the Finnish jury) and Spain, despite a disappointing 21st-place finish, also managing to score fewer last-places than Austria, with two as well.

As previously mentioned, the Azeri jury was the only one to unanimously decide on a last-place finisher, but there were eight other countries in which at least three jurors were in agreement. I think it’s very interesting to note that this year, ten juries ranked a song last despite no individual juror placing it there, to me highlighting the reduced influence of the lower end of the ranking. This year, ten jurors ranked a song last only for it to receive points from the overall jury as a result of the other jurors’ rankings. The UK even awarded douze points to Latvia despite Juror C putting “Bur man laimi” at the bottom of their list, providing further proof that the exponential model system is effective in reducing the impact of a lower ranking.

By contrast, a juror choosing a song as their favourite virtually guaranteed the song at least a point from that juror’s country. This year, only one juror’s winning song failed to score anything from the jury as a whole; Juror E in Albania ranked Latvia first, however, thanks to quite disparate opinions within the jury and a poor showing for Tautumeitas from the other jurors, “Bur man laimi” ended up eleventh and failed to receive any points from Albania. However, in the other 183 cases (99.46%), a single juror ranking a song first was enough to get the song into the top ten.

Further, in 147 out of 184 cases this year (79.89%), a song ranked first by any juror ended up in the top three with the jury as a whole (thus scoring at least eight points): this comprises 89 first-place finishes (48.37%), 34 second-place and 24 third-place. To put it simply, a song ranked first by a juror had just under a 50% chance of being that jury’s overall winner. Of course this is in part a result of the natural tendency of jurors to agree generally on which songs are the best of the night, but the point remains valid that higher rankings are a lot more influential on the overall results.

This doesn’t change much when we look at songs ranked second by jurors: these songs received points in 173 out of 184 cases (94.02%), of which 108 (58.70%) came in the top three. No song ranked second by a juror finished any lower than thirteenth in that juror’s country overall. Looking at jurors’ third-place choices, 168 out of 184 (91.30%) received points, and 75 finished in the top three. Therefore, being ranked in the top three by a single juror would this year give you a 94.93% chance of scoring points from that juror’s country, and a 59.78% chance of finishing in the top three. I will state again that the ‘Marmite’ songs that divide opinion and perform very well with some jurors and very badly with others will still score more highly than a song performing moderately well with everybody.

To round off this article, I’d like to look at a couple of statistics that are a little more… experimental, but interesting nonetheless. Firstly, I’ve been trying to decide on a way of determining which country’s juries had the most ‘mainstream’ opinions when compared to the overall result. This is far from an exact science, but my chosen methodology was to calculate the level of correlation between a jury’s ranking and the aggregate ranking of the 36 other countries. The stronger the correlation, the more ‘mainstream’ the jury.

To explain the numbers slightly: correlation coefficients take values between 1 and -1; a positive value indicates positive correlation and a negative value indicates negative correlation. The larger the magnitude of the value, the stronger the correlation: that is to say, a value of 1 indicates perfect positive correlation and a value of -1 indicates perfect negative correlation. Generally speaking, a value above 0.6 (or indeed below -0.6) indicates strong correlation, and a value above 0.8 indicates very strong correlation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, every jury this year had a ranking that exhibited positive correlation with the overall jury result. The jury with the weakest correlation was the Italian jury, with a correlation coefficient of 0.158 (thanks in no small part to the jury ranking Austria last) indicating very weak positive correlation. The only other country with a correlation coefficient lower than 0.2 is Azerbaijan, whilst a further seven countries have values indicating weak positive correlation (0.2-0.4). These juries would, using this method, be deemed the least mainstream, deviating the most from popular opinion.

At the other end of the scale, only one country’s ranking fell into the ‘very strong’ category, and that was host country Switzerland, with a correlation coefficient of 0.8 exactly. Overall, sixteen juries displayed strong positive correlation with values higher than 0.6. We can consider these juries to be the most ‘in touch’ with their international counterparts, having produced the rankings most similar to the combined opinion of all the jurors. The five most ‘mainstream’ juries (with the strongest correlation with the overall result), and five least ‘mainstream’ juries, are below.

Finally, another slightly more experimental statistic is an examination of the juries with the strongest correlation between their individual members. Whilst in theory, music industry experts should be thinking along similar lines, we have in the past seen jurors behaving suspiciously similarly to one another, and sometimes it’s nice to see a bit of variety of opinion. Again, this is probably not the ideal way of considering such a phenomenon, but having considered a number of different methods, I decided to calculate the correlation coefficients between each individual juror and the overall jury ranking, before taking an average of these to get an overall idea of how correlated the jury was.

The above explainer of correlation coefficients still applies, and it won’t come as a surprise by now that every single juror’s ranking was positively correlated with that of the overall jury. The individual juror with the ranking that most deviated from their country’s eventual result was the aforementioned Juror C of the United Kingdom, who, as well as putting Latvia last, ranked Austria, who would receive eight points from the jury, second-last, and chose Lithuania, only ranked in the top ten by one other juror, as their winner. The UK, thanks mainly to this loose cannon, therefore wins the award for ‘least correlated jury’, with an average value of 0.506. Four other countries had an average value lower than 0.6, falling into the category of ‘moderately strong’ positive correlation.

By contrast, five countries had an average value greater than 0.8, indicating very strong correlation. The country winning the award for ‘most correlated jury’ is Serbia, with an average value of 0.892. Every single Serbian juror had a ranking highly correlated with that of the jury as a whole (the lowest correlation coefficient from a member of this panel was 0.845), and Juror D in particular seems to have assessed the mood of their fellow jurors remarkably well, with an alarmingly high correlation coefficient of 0.933. With a few exceptions, Eastern European nations tended to have stronger correlation within their juries.

That’s everything I have for this article, and frankly, you deserve a medal if you’ve made it this far! Hopefully you’ve enjoyed a bit of a deep-dive into this year’s jury results. Ultimately, the jury’s influence in 2025 reinforced its role as Eurovision’s stabilising force – balancing out fan favourites with technical artistry. Whether you see that as safeguarding the contest’s credibility or stifling its spontaneity, one thing is clear: the jury debate isn’t going away any time soon.

Next on this blog will be my analysis of the other half of the Eurovision 2025 result: the televote, when I’ll be looking at all the trends influencing the European public, and also doing a bit of comparison between the two sides of the vote. Please do keep an eye out for that in the next few weeks!