Almaty University of Power Engineering and Telecommunications - AUPET vs Almaty Technological University - ATU vs Kazakh-British Technical University - KBTU vs University of Central Asia vs Asfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University
Side-by-side comparison from 9 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +Focused, career-oriented engineering education
- +Skills for growing tech fields
- +Strong regional reputation in engineering
- +Engaging and inspiring teaching
- +Excellent career support and opportunities
- +Strong sense of community and belonging
- +Strong academic foundation and competitive programming opportunities
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
- +Strong academic programs and experienced faculty
- +Extensive program variety and robust infrastructure
- +Valuable research opportunities and international collaboration
- +Good professors and modern campus
- +Strong support from the admission office
- +Effective advertising and diverse student body
- -Inefficient administrative processes and unclear communication.
- -Outdated facilities and lack of necessary resources.
- -Inconsistent teaching quality and unengaging curriculum.
- -Boring training system.
- -Administrative and management issues.
- -Outdated facilities.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and resources hinder learning.
- -Inflexible policies and lack of support are problematic.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
- -Outdated teaching methods and materials are a significant concern.
- -Students are frustrated with administrative and management issues.
- -Lack of modern facilities and resources hinders the learning experience.
- -Excessive administrative and management issues.
- -Outdated and poorly maintained facilities.
- -Lack of student support and resources.
This institution demonstrates notable strengths in several key areas. Student life, accommodation, and professor quality all receive excellent scores of 4.5. The location is also well-regarded at 4. While facilities and value are rated a respectable 3.5 and 3 respectively, the university's internationality is its weakest point, scoring a low 2.
This institution demonstrates a remarkably consistent performance across all assessed areas. Every category, from facilities and professors to student life and accommodation, received a top rating. Similarly, its location, internationality, and perceived value are all highlighted as exceptional. This suggests a comprehensively strong university experience with no particular weaknesses identified in this evaluation.
This institution achieves outstanding marks across nearly all aspects, with a perfect score in **Facilities** setting it apart. Student life, professors, location, accommodation, and internationality are all highly rated at 4.5. The university also presents a strong **Value** proposition at the same mark. With no significantly weak areas identified, the ratings paint a picture of a well-rounded and desirable educational environment.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
The institution receives particularly strong marks for its **location**, scoring a perfect 5. Student life is also highly regarded at 4.25, closely followed by the quality of professors at 4. Conversely, the university's **accommodation** stands out as a weaker area with a rating of 3, along with its facilities at 3.5. Internationality is moderately rated at 3.25, and the overall value is considered good at 4.
This institution garners excellent scores in several key areas, notably achieving perfect marks for Professors, Student Life, and Accommodation. Facilities and Internationality also receive strong ratings. However, the Value aspect stands out as the weakest, receiving a notably lower score compared to other categories, suggesting potential areas for improvement in terms of cost-effectiveness.
With a 3.5/5 average rating from two reviews, ~50% of feedback is positive. Students highlight the university's strong engineering focus and career-oriented education in fields like radio engineering and telecommunications. No negative feedback was provided.
The single review expressed strong dissatisfaction, with 100% of feedback being negative. The student found the university's training system boring and did not meet expectations, recommending against attendance.
With an average rating of 4/5 from two reviews, feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Students highlight strong programming foundations and active participation in competitive olympiads. No negative feedback was received.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
With an average rating of 3.75/5, ~75% of reviews are positive, highlighting strong academics, supportive faculty, and good research. ~25% of feedback mentions a traditional learning approach.
With a 4/5 average rating, approximately 100% of feedback is positive. Students highlight good professors, a modern campus, and helpful admissions.
The educational process is just fine; a university is an excellent option for people who speak Kazakh or Russian natively; I enrolled in 2019 in a complete English-based education, and let me briefly explain how each year went. The first year was challenging because the university did not provide a preparation year, so it was tough. The second year was somehow more accessible since we had already gotten used to the languages and started icebreaking. The third year was great. We could handle everything related to studies. In the fourth year, which is the current year, I'm having a serious problem related to the writing of the graduational diploma since most of the process isn't ready to handle international students. As I said previously, the university is excellent for Kazakh and Russian native speakers. But be ready to handle a lot of paperwork, and most of the time, you won't be able to write the "statement" or "application" in Russian. It's "заявление."
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show