In the objective category, winners were selected based on payload and performance, as well as technical merit, innovation, and potential impact. Teams that met or exceeded the challenge goal of a 4:1 ratio would earn the full prize purse. The following teams came in under the target and earned half the prize purse for each place.
All flight runs are complete. Results are grouped by official scored runs and attempted runs, ranked in order by payload-to-weight ratio. | Read the News Update
| Payload-to-Weight Performance Award | ||||
| 1. | AVIDrone, Inc. | Columbia, Md. | |||
| Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio | Prize | |
| 29 lb. | 112 lb. | 3.84:1 | $1,250,000 | |
| 2. | MTech Operations, LLC | Sudbury, Mass. | |||
| Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio | Prize | |
32 lb. | 117 lb. | 3.64:1 | $750,000 | |
| 3. | Xtreme Aerial Concepts | San Jose, Calif. | |||
| Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio | Prize | |
55 lb. | 189 lb. | 3.45:1 | $500,000 | |
| 4. | H-Squared | Boston, Mass. | |||
| Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio | ||
55 lb. | 163 lb. | 2.96:1 | ||
| 5. | MacGyver | Baltimore, Md. | |||
| Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio | ||
55 lb. | 137 lb. | 2.51:1 | ||
In the Subjective category, honorees were selected by a panel of DARPA program managers with deep aviation expertise.
| Most Revolutionary Aerodynamic Design | |
| Team | Prize |
| University of Maryland Autonomous Micro Air Vehicle Team | College Park, Md. | $500,000 |
| This team's design blended a tri-rotor into the propulsive design of a propeller-driven rotor by using servos to change blade and motor angles. Their craft takes off and lands like a multi-rotor craft and then transitions to a propeller-driven rotor once airborne. | |
| Most Revolutionary Powertrain Design | |
| Team | Prize |
| Portal Aircraft Company | Mansfield, Texas | $500,000 |
| This team created a novel, scalable concept that uses hot or cold turbine exhaust to drive the rotors, replacing driveshafts and mechanical linkages. Their approach could provide higher reliability due to fewer mechanical components. | |
| Most Promising Technology | |
| Team | Prize |
| DefendTex | Moab, Utah | $500,000 |
| While this team’s aircraft did not complete a scored run, it achieved the highest ratio in the competition at 9.63 to 1. The aircraft uses string-based support to individual motors to reduce hub structure and overall vehicle weight. The design is simple, easy to deploy, and minimizes disk loading on each propeller. | |
Teams who continued to push the limits of heavy lift aviation as they attempted but did not receive an official score:
| Team | Aircraft weight | Payload weight | Ratio |
| DefendTex | 12 lb. | 112 lb. | 9.63:1 |
| Capstone AirLift | 35 lb. | 122 lb. | 3.48:1 |
| YGGY Aviation | 29 lb. | 92 lb. | 3.14:1 |
| Dronesmith | 42 lb. | 120 lb. | 2.88:1 |
| InSky | 39 lb. | 112 lb. | 2.87:1 |
| Mimino | 46 lb. | 117 lb. | 2.56:1 |
| AVFL | 44 lb. | 112 lb. | 2.55:1 |
| VertSolve | 49 lb. | 114 lb. | 2.31:1 |
| Agriculture Tech | 52 lb. | 117 lb. | 2.27:1 |
| Hovering Owls | 52 lb. | 112 lb. | 2.16:1 |
| ATLAS (Buffalo) | 55 lb. | 112 lb. | 2.06:1 |
| Hanumantam | 55 lb. | 112 lb. | 2.02:1 |
| Phoenix Drone | 46 lb. | 67 lb. | 1.47:1 |
| Ragin Cajuns | 44 lb. | 57 lb. | 1.31:1 |
Final competition day and awards | 1:47
Meet the winners
