How entries are judged
The Asia FinTech Awards are committed to running a fair, consistent and transparent judging process. Every entry is reviewed by an independent panel of judges, with each member chosen for their subject matter expertise and impartiality.
The team coordinate with the judges on practical matters (for example sending the entries and the scoring matrix, arranging the group call, etc.) but the scoring is done entirely by the judging panel.
The Asia FinTech Awards team have absolutely no input into the assessment process and no influence on who wins each award.
Expertise of our judging panel
Our judges are influential figures within the industry, bringing extensive knowledge and experience to the process.
Due to the number of entries we receive, judges are assigned a handful of categories and are not expected to score entries in every category. Where possible, categories are allocated to the judges with the most relevant expertise, ensuring entries are assessed by people who truly understand the work being presented.
The judging process
- Following the entry deadline, entries are collated and sent to the judging panel for scoring.
- Judges are given two weeks to review and score their assigned categories.
- The judging panel then comes together for an online call to discuss each category in detail, comparing their scores and perspectives.
- Winners are decided through a combination of scores and discussion. Where scores are tied, the judges who scored the tying companies or individuals will make their case for the winner and then the wider judging panel will decide who to award the win to. The panel may also choose to recognise additional entrants with Highly Commended awards. These are entries that stood out as exceptional but weren’t chosen as winners.
Our scoring scale
Judges assess entries against the published criteria for each category and score them on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest. The judges also have the option of using half-marks (e.g. 3.5, 4.5) to recognise small differences in quality. Final results are based on the combined total of all judges’ scores and the outcome of the group discussion.
5 – Excellent
- Fully meets or exceeds the category criteria
- Provides strong, relevant examples and evidence
- Demonstrates clear impact, innovation or achievement
- Represents best practice in the field
4 – Very good
- Largely meets the category criteria
- Good examples and evidence of achievement
- Strong performance with positive outcomes
- Only minor gaps in detail
3 – Good
- Satisfactorily meets the criteria
- Some relevant examples included
- Evidence is present but not always detailed or convincing
- A solid entry, but not outstanding compared with others
2 – Limited
- Partially meets the criteria, with notable gaps
- Few or weak examples provided
- Limited or unclear evidence of impact
- Lacks depth or distinction
1 – Weak
- Does not meet the criteria
- Minimal or no relevant examples provided
- No clear evidence of achievement or impact
- Incomplete, vague, or off-topic entry
Ensuring fairness
- All entries are treated in strict confidence and are only seen by our internal events team and the judging panel.
- Judges are required to declare any personal or professional connections to an entry before they commence assessment. In such cases, they are recused from scoring that submission.
This process ensures that every entry is evaluated on merit, judged impartially, and given equal opportunity to succeed.
If you have any questions about the process, or anything else, please reach out to Kieren Beal on kieren.beal@barkerbrooks.co.uk.
