Quick Answer: What Are Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics?

These statistics do not tell you a candidate's mark, grade threshold, raw score, percentile, rank, coursework mark or school-specific performance. They are aggregated percentages for the population included in a given series. If a table says that 83.9% of candidates achieved C or above in a subject, it means that 83.9% of the candidates included in that subject's world total achieved at least C. It does not mean that C was awarded at 83.9 marks, and it does not mean that a candidate needed 83.9% on the paper.

The page you are reading is designed as a results-statistics reference, not as a grade-boundary calculator. If you need exam practice for individual syllabuses, use the dedicated RevisionTown Cambridge pages such as Cambridge IGCSE Mathematics 0580, Cambridge IGCSE 9-1 Mathematics 0980, Cambridge IGCSE Biology 0610, Cambridge IGCSE Chemistry 0620, Cambridge IGCSE Physics 0625 and Cambridge IGCSE Computer Science 0478. If you want to plan marks and grades separately, use the GCSE and IGCSE 9 to 1 Grade Converter or the Grade Calculator, keeping in mind that grade thresholds are separate from results statistics.

How to Read Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics Correctly

The most important word in these documents is cumulative. Cambridge's grade-statistics tables do not usually list the percentage at each exact grade as separate point values. Instead, the columns build upward from a grade threshold. In an A*-G table, "A or above" includes A* and A. "B or above" includes A*, A and B. "C or above" includes A*, A, B and C. The columns therefore become larger as you move toward lower grades, because each new threshold includes more candidates.

This is why a subject can show 19.8% A*, 43.4% A or above and 62.3% B or above in the same series. The 43.4% is not the percentage of candidates who received exactly A. It is the percentage who received A* or A. To estimate the exact A share from a cumulative table, subtract the A* percentage from the A-or-above percentage. To estimate the exact B share, subtract A-or-above from B-or-above. The exact point-grade shares are approximations because the official table is rounded to one decimal place.

In a 9-1 table, the same logic applies. Grade 9 is the highest single grade. "8 or above" includes grades 9 and 8. "7 or above" includes grades 9, 8 and 7. "4 or above" is often treated as an important reference level because grade 4 is commonly used as a pass-style benchmark in many UK-style contexts, but Cambridge IGCSE recognition depends on the institution, country and subject. A 9-1 results-statistics PDF should not be mixed numerically with an A*-G PDF unless you explicitly define a mapping for the purpose of your analysis.

Current Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics PDFs

Cambridge International updates its results-statistics pages after each examination series. At the time of this update, the Cambridge IGCSE page lists March 2026 as the most recent IGCSE results-statistics PDF, followed by November 2025 and June 2025 in the previous-series archive. The current documents are useful for readers who want the latest official grade-distribution tables before moving into older series.

The March 2026 PDF is a useful example of how the tables work. For Mathematics in March 2026, the table reports 19.8% achieving A*, 43.4% achieving A or above, 62.3% achieving B or above, 83.9% achieving C or above and 2.1% ungraded. Those figures show cumulative outcomes, not raw marks. They also show why a school should compare like with like: a March series may have a different candidate profile from a June or November series, and smaller entries can create larger apparent swings.

Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics Archive

Use this archive to download the official Cambridge International PDFs by series and grade scale. The search tool filters the table by year, month, scale or document name. All of the links requested for this article are included below, and the newer Cambridge links listed above are included so the page remains useful for current readers.

Showing all archive rows.

Key Formulas for Interpreting Results Statistics

The official PDFs are already percentages, so most classroom analysis is about converting cumulative percentages into exact grade bands, counts or comparisons. The formulas below use MathJax and show the logic behind the calculators on this page.

Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics Tools

These tools are for interpreting official statistics, not predicting grade thresholds. They help you convert cumulative table entries into approximate point-grade shares, estimated candidate counts and series-to-series percentage changes.

Cumulative-to-exact grade calculator

Threshold count estimator

Series comparison calculator

A*-G vs 9-1: Do Not Mix the Grade Scales

Cambridge IGCSE can be reported using A*-G grades or 9-1 grades depending on the syllabus, administrative zone and availability. The official 9-1 statistics documents explicitly say that the 9-1 syllabuses and corresponding examinations included in the document are identical to their equivalent A*-G graded syllabuses. That does not mean a simple percentage table can be merged directly with A*-G without a defined interpretation. The documents use different column labels and different reference points.

In practical school analysis, A*-G and 9-1 should be kept in separate worksheets or clearly labelled columns. A*-G analysis often focuses on A*, A or above, B or above and C or above. 9-1 analysis often focuses on 9, 7 or above, 5 or above and 4 or above. If a school wants to create a local equivalence for progress monitoring, it should document the mapping and use it consistently. For public reporting, use Cambridge's scale exactly as shown in the relevant PDF.

March, June and November Series: Why Like-for-Like Comparison Matters

Cambridge IGCSE is offered across more than one examination series. The March series, June series and November series can have different subject availability, different school participation patterns and different candidate populations. A subject's C-or-above percentage in March should therefore not be treated as directly comparable with June without context. It may still be useful, but it should be described as a cross-series comparison rather than a like-for-like performance trend.

The best statistical comparison is usually same subject, same grade scale, same series month and adjacent years. For example, comparing March 2025 Mathematics with March 2026 Mathematics is cleaner than comparing March Mathematics with June Mathematics. Comparing November 2024 9-1 Mathematics with November 2025 9-1 Mathematics is cleaner than mixing November A*-G with June 9-1. The more you change between two data points, the more careful your interpretation must be.

This matters for school review. If a department sees a drop in "B or above" from one PDF to another, the first question should not be "What went wrong?" It should be "Are these the same subject, same scale, same series, same syllabus route and comparable candidate profile?" Only after that should teachers look at curriculum coverage, paper difficulty, cohort strength, entry decisions, coursework moderation, language profile, resits, withdrawals and support interventions.

Covid-19 Caveat for June 2020 and 2020-2022 Comparisons

Cambridge explains that no examinations were held in June 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic. To help candidates progress, Cambridge asked teachers to predict grades based on evidence of candidate performance and also calculated grades using candidate data provided by centres and centres' past exam-grade records. Candidates were awarded whichever of those two grades was higher. Some candidates withdrew entries and waited for later examination opportunities, so the population included in the statistics differed from normal June series.

This makes June 2020 a special case. The June 2020 PDFs are useful as historical documents, but they should not be used as ordinary exam-outcome benchmarks. The figures may differ from previous June series because both the awarding method and the profile of candidates entered were different. When writing a school report or trend analysis, label June 2020 separately and avoid presenting it as a normal examined series.

Cambridge's later documents also note adjusted awarding standards across some pandemic-affected years. For example, March 2026 notes that the March 2021, March 2022 and March 2023 awarding standards were adjusted in response to the pandemic, with the March standard returning to the pre-Covid standard in March 2024 and the same standard applied in March 2026. June 2025 9-1 statistics note adjustments from June 2020 to June 2022 and a return to pre-Covid standards in June 2023, with the same standard applied in June 2025. November 2025 notes an adjusted standard from November 2020 to November 2022 and return to pre-Covid standard in November 2023.

For analysis, treat 2020-2022 as a context period rather than a simple baseline. The data can still be meaningful, especially for understanding broad outcomes, but it should not be mixed with 2024-2026 trends without a note. If you are building a chart, consider separating pre-pandemic, pandemic-adjusted and post-return-to-standard years by colour or annotation.

How Students, Teachers and Schools Can Use Results Statistics

For students and parents

Students should use results statistics to understand broad subject outcomes, not to predict their own grade. A subject with a high A-or-above percentage is not automatically easy, because the candidate population may be highly selected. A subject with a lower A* percentage is not automatically unfair, because candidates, coursework routes and assessment structures differ. Results statistics can help students ask better questions: How competitive is the subject? What proportion reached C or above? Is the 9-1 scale available for this syllabus? Are there large ungraded percentages that suggest candidate completion issues?

For preparation, students should spend more time on syllabus content, past papers, examiner reports, marking schemes and timed practice than on grade statistics. RevisionTown's Cambridge IGCSE Maths Past Papers, IGCSE Past Papers and IGCSE and O Level Past Paper pages are more directly useful for day-to-day study. Statistics provide context; practice improves performance.

For teachers

Teachers can use results statistics as part of department review. A teacher might compare C-or-above, B-or-above and A-or-above outcomes across several years to understand broad shifts in a subject. The statistics can also help teachers explain the difference between grade distribution and grade thresholds to students. However, the official PDFs should be combined with internal mock data, question-level analysis, syllabus coverage, attendance, teaching time, class size and candidate entry profiles.

A useful department discussion is to choose a small number of stable metrics. For A*-G subjects, many schools track A*, A or above, B or above, C or above and ungraded. For 9-1 subjects, they may track 9, 7 or above, 5 or above, 4 or above and ungraded. The point is not to chase every column but to create a consistent language for improvement. If the department switches between scales, the report should show both scales separately.

For school leaders

School leaders should avoid ranking departments from public world totals alone. A school's performance depends on candidate profile, entry policy, language background, teaching allocation, resource availability, prior attainment, subject choice and exam series. Cambridge's world statistics are a useful external reference, but they are not a school value-added measure. Use them to support questions, not as the only evidence for decisions.

A strong school review combines external statistics with internal evidence: mock results, predicted grades, teacher-assessed topic strengths, question-level performance, student support records, intervention attendance and final grades. For statistical methods, RevisionTown's Descriptive Statistics, Statistics Calculator and Mean, Median, Mode and Standard Deviation Calculator can help explain measures such as spread, average, percentage change and outliers.

For exam officers

Exam officers can use results statistics as a reference archive, but operational decisions should rely on Cambridge Direct, the Cambridge Exams Officers' Guide, timetables, entry deadlines, results release dates and post-results services. The RevisionTown Cambridge exam timetables guide and IGCSE exam timetable page are useful starting points for planning, but the official Cambridge timetable and school-specific entries remain the controlling sources.

Exam officers should also distinguish results statistics from grade threshold tables and results release systems. Results statistics are public PDF summaries. Grade threshold tables are separate documents. Candidate results are released through authorised school and candidate channels. Enquiries about results and post-results services follow Cambridge's official processes and deadlines.

Subject-by-Subject Reading Strategy

The best way to read a subject row is to start with the scale, then the threshold that matches your question. For Mathematics 0580 on the A*-G scale, a school might look at A*, A or above, B or above and C or above. For Mathematics 0980 on the 9-1 scale, a school might look at 9, 7 or above, 5 or above and 4 or above. For science subjects, departments might compare Biology, Chemistry and Physics across the same series, but even that should be done carefully because the candidate populations may not be identical.

A Professional Workflow for Analysing Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics

1. Choose the exact PDF. Select the correct series, year and grade scale. Do not use a 9-1 document for an A*-G syllabus.
2. Copy the subject row carefully. Keep all column labels with the copied values. Most mistakes happen when values are pasted without headings.
3. Label the population. Write "cumulative world totals" and note the examination month. This prevents readers from treating the row as school-level data.
4. Convert only when needed. If you need exact grade shares, subtract adjacent cumulative columns and state that rounding makes the values approximate.
5. Compare like with like. Match subject, syllabus, scale and series month before discussing trend direction.
6. Annotate pandemic years. Mark June 2020 separately and identify adjusted-standard years where Cambridge notes them.
7. Separate statistics from thresholds. Use grade threshold tables for marks required for grades. Use results statistics for distribution outcomes.
8. Write a cautious conclusion. Say what changed, how much it changed by, and what cannot be concluded from the PDF alone.

A clear sentence might look like this: "In the March 2026 Cambridge IGCSE Mathematics A*-G statistics, 83.9% of candidates achieved C or above and 2.1% were ungraded; this is a cumulative world-total outcome, not a grade threshold." That sentence names the series, subject, scale, threshold and limitation. It avoids claiming that the exam was easier or harder without evidence from grade thresholds, papers, entry patterns and candidate profile.

Worked Examples: Turning Cambridge Statistics into Clear Interpretation

Worked examples make the difference between reading a table and using it responsibly. Suppose a subject row reports 19.8% at A*, 43.4% at A or above, 62.3% at B or above and 83.9% at C or above. The first safe interpretation is simply cumulative: 83.9% achieved at least C, 62.3% achieved at least B, 43.4% achieved at least A, and 19.8% achieved A*. If you need approximate exact grade bands, you subtract adjacent cumulative values. Exact A is approximately 43.4% minus 19.8%, which gives 23.6%. Exact B is approximately 62.3% minus 43.4%, which gives 18.9%. Exact C is approximately 83.9% minus 62.3%, which gives 21.6%.

This does not mean Cambridge published exact A, exact B and exact C counts in that form. It means you have derived approximate point-grade shares from rounded cumulative percentages. Because the official table is rounded to one decimal place, the derived values may not sum perfectly. If you are writing a report, say "approximately" whenever you use a derived exact band. For high-stakes reporting, keep the original Cambridge cumulative values alongside the derived values so readers can see what came from the PDF and what came from your calculation.

Now suppose a school has 120 candidates in the same subject and wants to compare its own internal results with the Cambridge world-total percentage. If the world total shows 83.9% C or above, the equivalent count in a group of 120 would be \(120 \times 0.839 = 100.68\), or about 101 candidates. That number is not a target by itself. It is a benchmark-style reference. A school might be above it because it enters a highly prepared cohort, below it because it has an open-entry policy, or different from it because its candidate mix, language profile, teaching hours and prior attainment are different from the global population.

For 9-1 results, the same method applies. If a table gives 16.9% at grade 9, 30.5% at 8 or above and 41.1% at 7 or above, then exact grade 8 is approximately 30.5% minus 16.9%, which gives 13.6%. Exact grade 7 is approximately 41.1% minus 30.5%, which gives 10.6%. If the same row gives 68.1% at 5 or above and 78.4% at 4 or above, the exact grade 4 share is approximately 78.4% minus 68.1%, which gives 10.3%. The key is always to subtract the next higher cumulative threshold, not the next lower one.

Clear Reporting Language for Schools and Tutors

When schools write reports from public statistics, the safest language is precise, limited and transparent. A good statement names the source, the series, the subject, the scale, the threshold and the limitation. A weak statement says "the subject got harder" or "students performed better globally" without checking grade thresholds, candidate profile, syllabus changes or entry patterns. Cambridge IGCSE results statistics can support a claim about published outcomes; they cannot alone explain why those outcomes happened.

Tutors can use similar wording with parents. Instead of saying a subject is easy or hard because a certain proportion of candidates achieved A or above, it is better to say: "This subject's public statistics show how candidates performed globally in that series. Your child still needs to prepare from the syllabus, practise past papers, understand mark schemes and review examiner reports." That wording keeps the statistics in their proper place and avoids turning a global distribution into a personal prediction.

A student-facing explanation should be even simpler. Results statistics answer "What happened to candidates in a series?" Grade thresholds answer "What marks were needed for grades?" Past papers answer "What skills and question types should I practise?" A candidate should not spend revision time trying to reverse-engineer a future grade distribution from old percentages. The practical value is in understanding standards, not guessing outcomes.

Data-Quality Checklist Before You Draw Conclusions

Before using any results-statistics table in a presentation, spreadsheet, school improvement report or parent briefing, run a short data-quality check. This protects you from the most common errors: using the wrong scale, mixing series months, copying the wrong subject row, forgetting the Covid-era caveat, treating cumulative columns as exact grade shares, or interpreting public world totals as local school data.

A clean spreadsheet layout usually has one row per subject and one column per cumulative threshold. Avoid combining exact bands and cumulative thresholds in the same unlabeled table. If you derive exact bands, name them clearly, for example "Approx exact A from cumulative data." If you are plotting a chart, label the axis as "percentage of candidates" and label the series as "C or above", "B or above" or "7 or above" rather than using vague names such as "pass rate" or "success rate".

How to Chart Cambridge IGCSE Results Statistics Without Misleading Readers

Charts can make results statistics easier to understand, but they can also create misleading impressions if the underlying data is not labelled well. A bar chart of C-or-above percentages across several years is usually clearer than a crowded chart containing every threshold. A line chart can work for same-month, same-scale, same-subject trends, but it should not imply a smooth progression if the chart jumps from March to June to November or mixes A*-G and 9-1 data.

For A*-G subjects, a practical chart set might include three lines: A or above, C or above and ungraded. This gives a high-grade measure, a broad attainment measure and a completion/outcome-risk measure. For 9-1 subjects, a practical chart set might include 7 or above, 4 or above and ungraded. If you add exact grade bands, use a stacked bar chart and state that the bands were derived from rounded cumulative percentages.

Avoid ranking subjects by A* percentage alone. Some subjects attract specialist candidates, some have different entry profiles, and some have small entries. A high A* rate may reflect a selected group rather than an easier subject. A low A* rate may reflect a wider entry policy rather than weaker teaching. If the purpose is curriculum review, combine public statistics with internal evidence: mock performance, attendance, prior attainment, student voice, teacher feedback, syllabus coverage and paper-level analysis.

How to Keep This Cambridge IGCSE Statistics Page Useful Over Time

Cambridge updates the official results-statistics archive after examination series are processed. A useful RevisionTown page should therefore preserve older links while clearly identifying the latest available official PDFs. Older documents are still valuable because they support longitudinal review, but the hero content should not claim that an older series is the most recent when Cambridge has published newer statistics. The archive should grow without breaking the historical list.

A practical update routine is straightforward. First, check the official Cambridge IGCSE results-statistics page after each March, June and November release cycle. Second, add the new PDF to the current table and archive table with the correct grade scale. Third, update any sentence that identifies the most recent series. Fourth, leave older PDFs in place because teachers and schools may still need them. Fifth, keep the Covid-19 explanation visible because June 2020 and the adjusted-standard period remain important when interpreting trends.

The page should also keep its focus. It should not become a general Cambridge past-paper page, a grade-threshold page or a grade-converter page. Those are separate search intents. This article should rank for users who want Cambridge IGCSE results statistics, official PDF archives, cumulative grade percentages and interpretation guidance. Natural links to past papers, grade tools and statistics calculators are useful when they help the reader's next step, but the main page should remain a statistics archive and explanation.