Now that most PGY-1s have started their first year of residency training, new data on the 2026 Match show encouraging signs about application trends: declines in the overall number of applications and also in the average number of applications per medical student.

How do declines in application numbers mean a successful Match and even bring encouragement to Match experts, students, and program directors?

“It’s a good thing,” said Patrick Fritz, MBA, senior director of residency and fellowship services at the  Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Historically, “there were more people applying blindly,” Fritz said, which can cost more, take more time for both applicants and programs, and create more stress and confusion.

A decrease in the number of applications does not reflect a decrease in the number of applicants, nor does it affect the number of students who land a residency, experts noted. The 2026 Match was highly successful, with a 99.3% overall match rate, said Jeanette Calli, MS, chief of Match Operations at the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP).

The decrease also did not affect how many students — nearly 50% — matched to their first choice on their rank order lists.

What it means instead, experts said, is that medical students used improved tools and increased transparency to become more strategic about where and how they applied. This continues a 5-year trend that experts hope to see continue.

“Having informed applicants is the most important part,” Fritz said.

Because of the competitiveness of the Match process, many students historically adopted a strategy of applying to as many programs as possible, often to hedge their bets. But data do not support that strategy, the experts said. It’s better to use the data and other information about a program to identify the places a student really wants to go and put the time and energy into applications at those programs instead. A deluge of applications without any real strategy can be a waste of time and resources. The AAMC and program advisers, as well as advisers to medical students going through the process, have wanted to see a drop in the high number of applications for some time.

The number of residency applications has declined slowly over the past 5 years, with total applications dropping to 4 million in 2026 from 4.5 million in 2025. The average number of applications per MD student dropped to 53.7 from 58, and the average number of applications per DO student dropped from 73.1 to 68.2. The average number of applications for international medical students was 114.3 in 2026 vs 123.8 in 2025.

Yet the percentage of matched students remained just as high as in 2025, with 99.3% of students who had matched either through NRMP’s Main Residency Match program or Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program. Nearly half of those students matched to the first choice on their rank order lists. Nearly three fourths of all students matched to one of their top three choices, according to data from the NRMP. The decrease comes after concerted efforts to provide better data and tools to applicants to simplify the application process, said Fritz.

While the NRMP runs the Match algorithm that matches students to residency programs, applicants apply through Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS), which is designed and run by the AAMC. Fritz said the AAMC has launched several new products and tools in the past 5 years to improve the process. The goal is to give each student as much data as they need to make the most informed decisions about where to apply for residencies and fellowships.

Those changes have “contributed to a much more informed application,” Fritz said, which in turn has allowed students to save time, possibly money and headaches by spraying out an indiscriminate number of applications.

A tool that appears to be working especially well is called “signaling,” in which an applicant can “signal” to a certain number of programs that they are particularly interested in them. The program was piloted in the 2020-2021 Match year with ENT. More than two dozen residency programs used signaling in the most recent Match.

Diane M. Howell, MD, associate dean of student affairs at the UF Health College of Medicine in Gainesville, said that signaling has proved to be very helpful among the students she has advised.

And that trend may continue in the coming year.

“Last year showed that if you’re not signaling, you may not be considered,” Howell said.

As someone who has sat both on the applicant side and the program director’s side, Howell said she is all for signaling.

“The more applications you have, the harder it is to review and give time to each application. It makes it harder to find that diamond in the rough or that student who really aligns with your program,” Howell said.

Ultracompetitive residency programs such as dermatology and plastic surgery are seeing as many as 95% of their applicants signal.

“I think it’s been a really helpful tool,” said Ellen S. Satteson, MD, residency program director of plastic surgery at the UF Health College of Medicine and also a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. “It’s a legitimate way of saying, ‘I have a genuine interest in your program. Hey, look me over.’”

Like Howell, Satteson encouraged applicants for the 2027 application cycle to signal.

Jen Lozano, MD, who just began her PGY-1 year at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, used signaling this year as she applied to her residency programs.

“My program adviser really stressed signaling,” said Lozano, who graduated from UC Davis School of Medicine last spring. Her adviser also stressed that Lozano should carefully and thoroughly research the programs before she signaled.

That made things easier when it came time to interview, Lozano said, in part because it cut down the amount of time she had to consider where to interview. 

“It’s a lot of work to prepare for interviews,” she said, explaining that it makes little sense for applicants to interview for positions they are only marginally interested in. “Why go to more interviews than you need to?”

Beyond signaling, Fritz said the AAMC has instituted other tools within the past 5 years that are helping applicants. One is Residency Explorer, which provides in-depth information about each residency program. The AAMC also has partnered with the graduate medical education interview management software company Thalamus to help provide more detailed information to residency applicants.

He urges students to utilize Residency Explorer and to work closely with their faculty advisers, who are also paying close attention to new tools, the data around them and enhanced programs that can help them.

Howell agreed.

“We encourage students to work with Residency Explorer,” Howell said. “I’m really encouraged by the increased transparency and putting information out there for the students. Before, it was kinda like, ‘I heard this place has a nice reputation,’ but now, it’s more like ‘let me help you get to know these programs on the front end.’”

The bottom line for all applicants is to work closely with their advisers if they have questions about how to engage with ERAS, Residency Explorer and signaling.

“First and foremost, it’s helpful to have one-on-one relationship with your faculty adviser,” said Lozano. “Every student is different, every specialty is different.”

Working as a team with the enhanced tools, the application process should continue to become more transparent and allow applicants to continue to become more strategic, experts said.

“I do like that trend of transparency and putting more data out there,” said Howell.

“We’ve received a lot of positive feedback,” said Fritz, especially on signaling. In addition to lowering the number of applications, it has helped programs identify applicants it might have overlooked in the past.

Calli said the data show that focusing on a “thoughtful and realistic match strategy” will help applicants the most, which in turn helps result in a successful Match.

“The story of the 2026 Match is one of growth and opportunity,” Calli said, “with expansion in key specialties that promote the nation’s medical workforce.”

The experts cited in the article had no relevant disclosures.