AdmiScan Cross-State NEET Research
This comparison combines AdmiScan's separately verified Karnataka and Maharashtra 2025 research. It compares movement distributions, not raw admission difficulty: sample size, unchanged share, median movement and p90 movement stay visible for every state-round pair.
Karnataka MBBS-GOVT and Maharashtra GOVERNMENT are state-specific counselling labels. Their quota rules, category systems and candidate pools are not identical. This page therefore does not say one state is easier, safer or more predictable. It compares the observed 2025 round-movement distributions inside each reviewed scope.
| Rounds | State | Published scope | Comparable | Unchanged | Median abs. | P90 abs. | Median % | P90 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 → R2 | Karnataka | MBBS-GOVT | 1,444 | 478 (33.1%) | 3,323 | 13,206 | 4.77% | 22.86% |
| R1 → R2 | Maharashtra | MBBS · GOVERNMENT | 1,095 | 444 (40.5%) | 1,182 | 29,760 | 2.54% | 33.42% |
| R2 → R3 | Karnataka | MBBS-GOVT | 186 | 0 (0.0%) | 16,142 | 35,887 | 19.54% | 39.17% |
| R2 → R3 | Maharashtra | MBBS · GOVERNMENT | 1,105 | 808 (73.1%) | 0 | 4,036 | 0.00% | 7.41% |
Karnataka MBBS-GOVT had a median absolute movement of 3,323 ranks across 1,444 comparable keys, versus 1,182 across 1,095Maharashtra MBBS government-scope keys. But Maharashtra's p90 was 29,760, more than double Karnataka's 13,206. Typical movement and tail movement therefore point in different directions.
Maharashtra had 808 unchanged keys out of 1,105 (73.1%)and a zero median, while Karnataka's reviewed MBBS-GOVT sample had186 comparable keys, none unchanged, and a median movement of 16,142. Because those sample sizes differ sharply, this should be read as descriptive evidence rather than a state-level ranking.
The median can look calm while the tail is wide. That is exactly what R1→R2 Maharashtra shows relative to Karnataka.
Unchanged share needs sample size. A percentage without the number of comparable exact keys can be misleading.
Quota labels are state-specific. Cross-state analysis must preserve the underlying counselling context.
Historical movement is not a prediction. Students still need current-year official notices and their exact category eligibility.
Both state studies use 2025 NEET All India Rank and compare adjacent counselling rounds by exact published keys inside their respective state-specific scopes.
Karnataka values on this page come from the reviewed MBBS-GOVT seat-type distribution. Maharashtra values come from the reviewed MBBS government seat-group distribution.
Categories are not mapped across states because reservation systems are state-specific. The page therefore compares distribution-level movement, not category equivalence or raw admission thresholds.
This report does not rank either state as more stable overall. The published comparable-key coverage and state-specific seat/category systems differ. It compares the observed movement distributions within each reviewed government-labelled MBBS scope and keeps sample size visible.
Median movement shows the middle of the observed distribution, while p90 shows the upper tail. In R1 to R2, Maharashtra had a lower median than Karnataka but a larger p90, so one number alone would hide an important part of the pattern.
No. They are state-specific counselling labels and eligibility systems. The comparison is descriptive, not a claim that the quota definitions or candidate pools are identical.
No. Seat matrices, category rules, applicant behaviour and counselling procedures can change. Historical round movement is context, not a forecast or admission guarantee.