Should hackathons go under Projects, Experience, or their own section?

Use 'Projects,' 'Hackathons,' or 'Technical Competitions,' not Experience, which implies paid work. Two or more hackathons earns a standalone section; one is fine folded into Projects.

Does the hackathon need to be a win to be worth listing?

No. A shipped, demoable project you can explain clearly beats a vague placement with nothing to show for it. If you didn't place, lead with what you built and skip the ranking rather than mention a low one.

Why does a GitHub link matter if the resume already describes the project?

It's the only part of the claim a recruiter can verify in under a minute. Put it as plain visible text in the bullet, not just a hyperlinked icon: some ATS parsers strip icons on export but keep visible URL strings.

How to Put a Hackathon on Your Resume (2026 Guide)

Q: What should each hackathon bullet point actually say?

Name, date, and outcome first, then what you built and your specific role, then a link. 'HackWithInfy 2025, Runner-up (Top 3 of 400+ teams). Built a real-time fraud-detection API in a 4-person team; owned the backend and model integration. github.com/you/project' beats 'Hackathon project, built an app' because it's a claim with proof attached.

The short answer: a hackathon gets its own line, with a result attached, not a vague mention under "extracurriculars." Recruiters skim in seconds, and "hackathon project" without specifics reads the same as not having built anything.

Pick the right section

Don't put it under "Experience" unless it was paid or led to an internship you've actually done. Use "Projects," "Hackathons," or "Technical Competitions" instead. Two or more hackathons worth mentioning earns a standalone section; one strong entry is fine folded into Projects.

The four things every entry needs

Name, date, and scale. "HackWithInfy 2025" beats "a hackathon I did." Scale ("400+ teams," "48-hour build") signals competitiveness without you having to state it.
Outcome, stated plainly. Won, placed, or shipped, say which. "Built at HackWithInfy 2025, won Best Technical Implementation" is a claim with proof attached; "Hackathon project" is just a category.
Your specific role. Team hackathons blur credit fast. "4-person team; owned backend and model integration" tells a recruiter exactly what's yours to defend in an interview.
A working link, written out. GitHub repo, live demo, or both, as plain text, not only an icon, since some ATS exports drop hyperlinked icons but keep visible URLs.

Weak vs. strong

Weak: "Participated in a hackathon. Built an app using AI."

Strong: "HackWithInfy 2025, Runner-up, Top 3 of 400+ teams. Built a real-time fraud-detection API in a 4-person team; owned backend and model integration, deployed on AWS. github.com/you/project"

The strong version answers what you built, what part was yours, and whether it can be checked: the three things a recruiter actually wants from a hackathon line.

Match keywords to the job, not the hackathon's theme

Name actual tools, "FastAPI," "PyTorch," "React Native," not vague categories like "backend framework." Pull two or three keywords straight from the job posting and use them only where they're honestly true of what you built.

Make the link worth clicking

A recruiter who clicks in is giving thirty seconds most resumes never get. The README should say what the project does, your specific contribution, and the stack: same three facts as the bullet, backed by working code. A rough live demo does more here than a longer bullet ever will.

No wins? Skip the ranking, keep the specifics

"Built a route-optimization tool for delivery riders at a 36-hour hackathon, team of 3; handled the mapping API integration" is a complete, strong line with zero placement mentioned. What's being evaluated is whether you can ship something real on a deadline with other people, not the trophy.

How many should actually be on there

Two or three hackathons described this specifically beats ten listed in one line each - how many hackathons you should actually do before placements covers why depth of description matters more than raw count once you're past a small handful.