Tie at a hackathon: how to break equal scores
Publish the comparison order before judging, separate rounding from ranking and record the reason for each tie-break decision.
Stavleak Team · Updated October 7, 2026
Two teams scored 82.5 points. There is one prize. If the next question is “Which criterion should we make the deciding one now?”, the rule has arrived too late. Decide how ties will work before the first pitch.
In brief
Resolve hackathon ties using a rule published before judging: verify calculations and score completeness, then apply the agreed comparison order. Display rounding must not silently change rankings. If scores remain equal, use the announced additional procedure. Record the calculation and reason for the decision, and replace judges with conflicts of interest according to the rules.
What should you announce before judging begins?
Describe the final-score formula, calculation and display precision, what counts as a tie and how to resolve it. Add who is responsible for recalculation and how missing scores and recusals are handled. Participants should understand why another team might rank higher when their totals are equal.
There is no single method for all hackathons. The WildHacks guide publishes a sequence of additional comparisons. Section 6E of the HACC 2024 rules provides for a judges’ vote. These examples show possible approaches; you do not need to copy them without considering your own format.
Below is a practice procedure for an event that prioritises a working user flow. If your goal is different, choose suitable criteria and publish the decision in advance. Once you have seen the projects, do not change that order to produce a convenient winner.
Do identical numbers on the screen already mean a tie?
Not necessarily. Here is a practice example: the calculation produces 82.34 and 82.33. If you display one decimal place, both teams see 82.3. Comparing the values before that rounding ranks the first team higher. No additional tie-break rule is needed here.
Record where rounding is permitted in the formula and which values are compared. In the practice procedure below, intermediate values are not rounded; the shortened number on the screen is only a display value. Reconstruct the ranking from the saved original scores, not from numbers copied out of a presentation.
Test the formula in advance with a small set of projects: different totals, equal totals, a missing score and a recusal. One correct sum does not mean the procedure will handle every one of those cases.
What does an agreed comparison order look like?
- Check readiness. All required scores have been received; eligibility, technical errors and recusals have been handled. A blank field does not become zero. An incomplete calculation does not go to a tie-break.
- Compare the totals. Use the result of the published formula, not the rounded label shown to the audience. If the totals differ, no further steps are needed.
- If they are equal, compare the working user flow. In our practice rule, this is the first additional measure; the next is the solution’s usefulness. Compare scores already awarded under the announced criteria.
- If equality remains, hold the announced vote. In this practice procedure, a previously appointed independent panel votes on the same submitted materials. If the vote is tied, the previously specified casting-vote role applies. The panel’s membership, recusal procedure and this order are published with the rule.
Who wins in the practice calculation?
All teams and numbers below are fictional. We use an illustrative 100-point scale: working user flow, up to 40; technical solution, up to 30; usefulness, up to 30. The entries already contain the calculated criterion scores. Do not multiply them by their weights a second time.
- Mayak: working user flow 33.50; technical solution 24.00; usefulness 25.00. Total: 33.50 + 24.00 + 25.00 = 82.50.
- Kedr: working user flow 34.00; technical solution 23.50; usefulness 25.00. Total: 34.00 + 23.50 + 25.00 = 82.50.
The totals are equal before rounding. Under the published practice rule, Kedr ranks higher: 34.00 for the working user flow versus 33.50. There is no need to compare usefulness or hold a vote. We did not add a criterion in the final; we applied one participants already knew.
How should you handle conflicts of interest and the decision log?
If a judge has a connection to a team, deal with that first, then calculate the total. MLH’s contest terms describe a judge’s recusal from the relevant project and replacement. Set your own procedure for your event, and do not record zero in place of a recusal.
Record the rule version, project identifiers, original scores, calculation, step applied and responsible person’s decision in the log. For example: “Totals 82.50 and 82.50; working-user-flow rule applied; 34.00 is higher than 33.50.” Keep any correction to an incorrectly entered score as a separate entry with a reason.
Prepare the criteria in the Stavleak organiser workspace, then check the assigned projects and criteria in the judge workspace. The tie-break procedure remains part of your published rules.
FAQ
Can we choose the deciding criterion after calculating scores?
It should be announced in advance. If the rules have a gap, use the established procedure for resolving organisational questions.
Can we simply compare rounded scores?
Use the comparison precision specified in the rules. A screen label must not silently replace the calculation.
What if one score is missing?
First handle the missing score according to the rules. It is an incomplete evaluation, not a tie.
Sources
- WildHacks: Judging Rounds — published additional comparisons.
- HACC: Official Rules 2024, section 6E — voting in the event of a tie.
- MLH: Contest Terms — conflicts of interest and judge replacement.
This article was prepared with AI assistance; the example calculation was checked.
