Royal Institute of Technology - KTH vs University of Gothenburg vs Umea University - UMU vs Karolinska Institute - KI vs Linnaeus University - LNU
Side-by-side comparison from 58 verified student reviews. Scan one row at a time — winners are highlighted
- +World-class facilities and inspiring study atmosphere
- +Strong academic programs with practical application and flexibility
- +Engaging and approachable instructors
- +Supportive and knowledgeable faculty
- +Well-equipped research environments and facilities
- +Interesting and well-organized programs
- +Excellent teachers and engaging student life.
- +Pleasant and convenient location and facilities.
- +Positive international atmosphere and good university reputation.
- +Student-centered approach and mentorship
- +International environment and diverse teaching staff
- +High-quality research and opportunities for engagement
- +Supportive and helpful professors and staff.
- +Good facilities and diverse academic programs.
- +Welcoming international environment and convenient resources.
- +University's quality and campus facilities.
Nothing to show
- -Administrative & management issues frustrate students.
- -Outdated facilities and poor maintenance are common complaints.
- -Lack of resources and support hinder learning.
- -Outdated facilities and insufficient resources are a persistent problem.
- -Lack of clear communication and organizational issues from the administration frustrate students.
- -Course content and teaching quality are often seen as inadequate or uninspiring.
- -Administrative & management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and poor resources detract from learning.
- -Lack of clear communication and support from staff is a problem.
- -Lack of teacher and staff investment.
- -Inefficient and repetitive course content.
- -Poor support for independent thesis work.
- -Administrative and management issues, particularly concerning international student affairs.
- -Mediocre teaching quality with limited value beyond independent learning.
- -Lack of industry connections and career support.
- -Administrative and management issues cause frustration.
- -Outdated facilities and equipment are a significant drawback.
- -Lack of effective communication and unclear expectations are problematic.
Nothing to show
Exceptional marks were awarded in several key areas, notably a perfect score for **Internationality**. **Facilities** and **Value** also received very high ratings. The university performs well across **Student Life** and **Accomodation**, with solid scores for **Professors** and **Location**. While no area received a low rating, **Location** represents the comparatively weakest aspect among the surveyed categories.
This institution garners exceptional marks for its location, boasting a rating of 4.86. Facilities and internationality are also highly regarded, both scoring 4.71. Professors receive a solid 4.57, and the overall value is rated at 4.29. Student life scores a respectable 4. The weakest area by a significant margin is accommodation, with a score of just 2.86.
This institution garners exceptionally high marks for its Facilities, Student Life, Internationality, and perceived Value, all receiving a near-perfect score. Professors are also rated favorably, while Location scores a solid 4. The primary area for improvement seems to be Accomodation, which received the lowest rating of 3.67.
This institution excels in several key areas, most notably its **Internationality**, receiving a perfect score. **Location** is another strong point, rated 4.8. However, **Student Life** appears to be the weakest area, scoring 3.2, with **Accomodation** also rating comparatively lower at 3.6. Other aspects like Facilities, Professors, and Value fall within a solid mid-to-high range.
Academic and student life aspects of the university received high marks. The institution particularly excelled in Internationality (4.27) and Student Life (4.23), reflecting a vibrant and globally-connected campus environment. Facilities (4.16) and Professors (4.12) also garnered positive feedback. Conversely, Value (3.81) and Location (3.83) were the lowest-rated categories, suggesting areas for potential improvement. Accommodations also scored moderately (3.92).
This institution presents a mixed rating profile. Its strongest areas include professors and value, both receiving a solid 3.5. Conversely, accommodation stands out as the weakest point, scoring a low 2. Facilities and internationality are rated moderately at 2.5, while location and student life achieve a respectable 3.
Nothing to show
All 12 reviews are positive, averaging 4.75/5. Students praise world-class research facilities, inclusive culture, and opportunities for theory-practice integration. Friendly, engaging instructors and diverse, flexible courses are also highlighted.
With a 4.71/5 average rating from 7 reviews, students report overwhelmingly positive experiences, highlighting exceptional faculty and enriching academic environments. No negative feedback was recorded.
With an average rating of 4.67/5, all three student reviews were positive. Recurring themes highlighted good teachers, great student life, and convenient facilities. No negative feedback was provided.
With an average rating of 4.14/5, ~86% of reviews are positive, praising student-centered learning, international diversity, and quality facilities. A small portion (~14%) of feedback notes uninvested teachers and course organization issues.
About 80% of reviews are positive, highlighting supportive professors, a welcoming atmosphere, and good facilities. A small portion (~7%) of negative feedback points to issues with teaching quality and administrative support.
With a 3.5/5 average rating, most feedback is positive (~100%). One student found the Borlänge campus building great but struggled with obtaining student information through confused online platforms.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
Rating: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5 — one extra star because tuition was free) I studied Software Technology at Linnaeus University between 2022 and 2025. In my experience, the quality of teaching was mediocre. I quickly stopped attending lectures because most added little beyond what I could learn independently. Industry connections were almost nonexistent: no internship support, no company-led workshops, no hackathons, and no clear pathways into the tech sector. The only recurring event was the annual job fair, but many representatives seemed unsure what they were seeking; most offered no internships or projects and there was rarely any follow-up, so it felt more promotional than student-focused. Entrepreneurship support was minimal. When we started a student project, there was no funding, no events, no network, and very limited guidance — essentially just one counsellor providing basic advice. Faculty culture felt very political and unresponsive to student feedback. When issues were raised formally, they were often dismissed, though quiet changes were occasionally made later. I personally experienced hostile and dismissive behaviour from a lecturer in the tech faculty, which I reported to the Student Union in 2024 along with other classmates. The case was closed in the lecturer’s favour, yet the university quietly implemented some of the changes we had requested. The complaint process left me uncertain about its independence, and I believe there’s a need for more transparent procedures and external oversight. On the positive side, there are a few excellent professors who genuinely care about their students and involve them in research, but they are a small minority and you have to actively seek them out. Overall, I’m deeply disappointed with the university’s approach to education and student development. I feel I wasted three years of potential growth and opportunity here. Prospective students should do thorough research and speak directly with current students before enrolling.
Nothing to show
Nothing to show
