Every student who has tried to study abroad has kept the same file. It might be a spreadsheet, a notes app, or a folder of screenshots. It has university names in one column, a half-remembered tuition figure in another, and a deadline someone mentioned in a group chat.
That file is a symptom. The information the student needs already exists — entry requirements, intakes, tuition, scholarship criteria — it is simply spread across a thousand pages, written for administrators rather than applicants, and stale often enough that nobody trusts it.
The gap is not information, it is legibility
We did not start Unihub Network because there is too little data about studying abroad. We started it because the data is unreadable to the person who needs it most.
A university publishes its requirements in the language of its admissions office. A student arrives with a transcript, a budget, and a question: can I get in, and can I afford it? Nothing in between translates one into the other. So students guess, or they ask whoever they can find, and the quality of the answer depends on who they happen to know.
That is the part that bothers us. Two students with identical grades should not end up in different places because one of them had better-connected friends.
What we decided to build
Unihub Network is an edtech company. We design, build and run software for students making this move. The first product is Gradsy: a student answers a few questions, and we score the whole catalogue against that profile and return programs ranked by fit — each one carrying the reason it matched.
The reasoning matters as much as the ranking. A score with no explanation is just another thing to take on faith, and students have had enough of those. If a program is a strong match, the student should see which parts of their profile fit. If it is a stretch, they should see that too, early enough to do something about it.
Why a network, not a product
We could have stopped at one app. We did not, because the same problem shows up at every stage of the journey.
Before the search, students do not know what is realistic. During the application, they are tracking documents and deadlines across a dozen systems that do not talk to each other. After the offer, they are trying to find someone who has actually done this, and the best source is a student who was in their position a year ago.
Those are different products with the same underlying commitment. Building them under one roof means what we learn on one becomes the head start for the next — the catalogue behind Gradsy is already the layer everything else sits on.
The bar we are holding ourselves to
One question, asked of every decision: does this make the next step clearer for the student in front of us?
It rules out a lot. It rules out scores we cannot explain, numbers we cannot verify, and features that look impressive in a demo but leave the student no better informed than before.
We would rather ship one thing that genuinely works than five that nearly do. There is more to build than we can build this year — but the direction is settled, and it starts from the student's side of the table.