Generally, the evaluations in architectural competitions are based on quality where many criteria are involved. Additionally, many other inter-related criteria, identified by the members of the jury, emerge during jury evaluation. Hence, a great number of criteria play a role, with varying degrees of importance, in the evaluation process. The order of importance and weights of criteria (factors) in the evaluation phases are not fixed and differ according to the approaches of the jury members. The objective of this study is to investigate whether subjective means of evaluation can be associated with an objective and computable evaluation model. Entropy, an objective method used to measure disorder in buildings, offers significant potential in enhancing the comprehensibility of subjective tendencies in jury evaluation of architectural competitions. Previous studies have identified an inverted U relationship between entropy and subjective responses based on single and multiple factors. The Entropy-Based Design Evaluation Model (EBDEM), a method, analyzes the level of objectivity in jury evaluation and questions the predictability of evaluations through examining the relationship between the entropy values of projects and success outcomes. The Weighted Overall Entropy (WOE) was obtained by multiplying multiple factor entropy values with different weight coefficients with the purpose of ranking each project on an inverted U graph similar to jury results. The relationship between WOE values calculated and the ranking of the projects in the competitions were investigated. The findings within this study indicate that there are no relationships between single factor entropy values and ranking of the projects. Additionally, it was found that WOE values calculated for single-competition compared to multiple-competitions were more similar to jury evaluation results.