Kyiv International University - KyIU vs Kyiv National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman vs National Aviation University vs Institute of Ecology, Economics and Law vs National Technical University of Ukraine Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute - NTUU KPI
Side-by-side comparison from 14 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Excellent and supportive teachers
- +High-level organization and clear information
- +Interesting and well-structured classes
- +Strong academic programs and supportive faculty.
- +Positive student atmosphere and community.
- +Opportunities for practical experience and international exchange.
- +Excellent faculty and engaging teaching methods
- +Valuable practical experience and career preparation
- +Supportive learning environment and strong community
Nothing to show
- +Strong technical foundation and useful experience
- +Cool community and interesting social life
- +Intense but manageable workload
- +Comprehensive business understanding and accessible teaching
- +Experiential learning, mentorship, and community events
- +Real-world application and career preparation
Nothing to show
- -Administrative and management issues cause constant frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and a lack of resources hinder learning.
- -Poor communication and unclear expectations create confusion.
- -Pervasive corruption and a focus on extracting money.
- -Inadequate and unengaging teaching from unmotivated lecturers.
- -Wasted time with little real value gained.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment.
- -Poor English proficiency among professors.
Nothing to show
- -Administrative and management indifference to student well-being.
- -Outdated facilities and ongoing maintenance problems.
- -Poor administrative support and unclear communication are frequent complaints.
- -Outdated facilities and a lack of modern resources are significant drawbacks.
- -The curriculum is often perceived as irrelevant or lacking practical application.
Nothing to show
This institution excels in several key areas, achieving perfect scores for its facilities, professors, and location. Student life and internationality are also strong, both receiving a solid 4 out of 5. However, the university's accommodation offerings present a significant weakness, with a rating of 0. Overall, the value is rated positively at 4, indicating a generally well-regarded experience despite the accommodation issue.
This institution demonstrates particular strengths in **Student Life**, receiving a high rating of 4.5. **Location** and **Professors** are also well-regarded, both scoring 4. **Accomodation** stands out as the weakest area, with a rating of 2.5. **Facilities**, **Internationality**, and **Value** fall within the mid-range of scores.
This institution's ratings present a mixed picture. Its strongest points are location, earning a respectable 3, suggesting good accessibility and surroundings. However, areas such as accommodation, professors, facilities, student life, and internationality all received a 2, indicating a need for significant improvement in these crucial aspects of the student experience. The value also received a 2, reflecting concerns about the return on investment.
Nothing to show
Analysis of this university's ratings reveals strengths in its **Location (4.5)**, standing out significantly. Conversely, the weakest areas appear to be **Professors (2)** and **Accomodation (2.5)**, both receiving considerably lower scores. Facilities and Student Life are rated moderately at 3, while Internationality and Value fall within the lower-average range.
This institution receives high marks across most categories, with Facilities standing out as its strongest area at a perfect 5. Student Life, Accomodation, Internationality, and Value are also exceptionally strong, each scoring 4.67. Professors represent the weakest area, though still solid at 4.33, with Location also performing well at 4.5.
Nothing to show
With 100% positive feedback and an average rating of 5/5, student reviews highlight excellent teachers and high-level organization. Positive comments also mention clear information and a supportive learning environment. No negative feedback was received.
With an average rating of 3.25/5, feedback is split evenly between positive and negative. Students praised good staff and interesting programs, while others cited corruption and unengaging teaching.
The single review indicates a highly negative experience. The reviewer cited old equipment not meeting program needs and professors with poor English proficiency, even in an English-taught program. This represented ~100% of feedback, resulting in a 1/5 average rating.
Nothing to show
With an average rating of 3.33/5, approximately 67% of reviews are positive, highlighting a cool community, useful experience, and strong technical foundation. Some negative feedback (33.3%) mentions areas for improvement such as building repairs and heating issues.
Students highly praise the comprehensive curriculum and excellent teaching staff, finding instruction accessible and engaging. Experiential learning opportunities and supportive faculty are frequently highlighted. No negative feedback was provided.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show