IMI Bhubaneswar NIRF Management rank: 94 in 2025
The latest official National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) Management result found for IMI Bhubaneswar is rank 94 in 2025, with a score of 46.24. NIRF’s own 2025 management results identify the institute by its Bhubaneswar name and location; the Government of India report table also places IMI Bhubaneswar at 94 in the Management list. This is an institutional category rank, not a separate ranking of the PGDM course.
The preceding NIRF Management result placed the institute at rank 61 in 2024 with a score of 50.38. From those two editions, the published position moved down 33 places and the score fell 4.14 points. The calculation is direct: 94 minus 61 equals 33 rank places; 50.38 minus 46.24 equals 4.14 score points. The rank change is relative to other institutions in the same annual list. It does not, on its own, show a 33-place change in teaching quality or student outcomes.
A 33-place movement describes the ordinal position in the published list, not a 33% change in the institute or its score. The NIRF score changed by 4.14 points on its own scale. Keep those two comparisons separate: rank is relative to the other ranked institutions in that year, while the score is the value shown for IMI in the NIRF table.
What changed inside the NIRF score
NIRF reports five component scores for the Management category. Comparing its 2024 and 2025 tables, Teaching, Learning and Resources (TLR) moved from 72.06 to 61.41, Research and Professional Practice (RPC) from 16.72 to 16.14, Graduation Outcomes (GO) from 78.94 to 81.22, Outreach and Inclusivity (OI) from 76.91 to 64.49, and Perception from 2.60 to 2.90. The largest raw-score decreases were in OI and TLR; GO and Perception increased.
These are the component values shown in the two NIRF editions. They help explain that the total score did not move uniformly across every dimension, but the raw component differences should not be summed to reproduce the overall score: NIRF applies its own category methodology and weights. The comparison identifies where the score table changed, not why the underlying institutional performance changed.
The component table gives a useful check against a one-number summary. In 2025, the reported GO score is higher than in 2024, while the TLR and OI scores are lower. It would therefore be inaccurate to say that every reported NIRF dimension declined. Nor does this table establish what caused the changes: it records scores, not an explanation from NIRF about IMI’s year-to-year movement.
How to read the year-on-year movement
Use the 2025 rank as the current NIRF reference and the 2024 rank as the prior edition. A rank can move because an institution’s score changes, other institutions’ scores change, or both; the rank alone cannot isolate those effects. Here the official table records both a lower overall score and a lower position, alongside increases in GO and Perception and decreases in TLR, RPC and OI. That combination is more informative than repeating only “rank 94,” while still stopping short of attributing a cause.
NIRF’s Management list is designed for an institution-level comparison within that category. It does not give a PGDM-specific rank, a ranking for an individual specialization, an admission cutoff or a placement guarantee. For programme decisions, read the rank with the institute’s batch-specific placement reporting and the current fee schedule. Those answer different questions and should retain their own years, populations and definitions.
The reported rank is not a direct measure of a student’s expected salary, the placement rate for one PGDM cohort, or the probability of admission. Those questions have different units and denominators. For an applicant comparing programmes, first align the reporting year and cohort for placement figures, then compare the published fee period and components. Keep that evidence alongside the NIRF rank instead of translating the rank into a return-on-investment claim.
Keep publisher rankings separate
IMI’s current admissions portal also displays rankings from other publishers and years. Treat each as a separate claim: record the publisher, edition, category and exact campus before comparing it with NIRF. A survey’s “overall” or private-school list is not automatically the same population or method as NIRF Management. This article uses the verified NIRF series for its year-to-year calculation and does not combine unlike ordinal ranks into a single score.
Before relying on a ranking for a 2027-28 decision, open the publisher’s source page for the latest edition and check that it names the Bhubaneswar campus. The institute’s 2026 NIRF submission document is a data submission, not itself a published 2026 rank. If a new official NIRF result or publisher table becomes available, update this page with that edition and preserve the preceding values as historical rather than replacing them with undated claims.
A document titled “Submitted Institute Data for NIRF 2026” is the institute’s submission of data for that cycle; it is not the NIRF ranking result itself. Check the separate published result table before assigning a rank year. This distinction prevents an upload or submission date from being mistaken for the year of an official ranking. If a future result is released, the historical 2024 and 2025 rows should remain visible so readers can see the actual series.