Cambridge IGCSE · Analysis & Prediction

2026 Cambridge IGCSE Chemistry (0620) Past Paper: Analysis & Answers

The Cambridge IGCSE Chemistry (0620) May/June 2026 examination series presents a balanced assessment across core concepts, extended theoretical principles, and experimental techniques. Across Paper 12/22 (MCQ), Paper 32/42 (Theory), and Paper 52/62 (Practical), major weighting is placed on chemical energetics, organic chemistry pathways, qualitative analysis of ions, stoichiometry, and rates of reaction. Question styles rigorously test precision in chemical formulae, bond energy calculations, ionic equations with state symbols, and experimental design methodologies.

Updated: Sep 23, 2026

Analysis Sample paper

Difficulty 3.4/5

Total marks

320

Duration

300 mins

Most tested

Experimental Techniques, Kinetics, and Organic Functional Groups

Paper breakdown

Paper 12 Multiple Choice (Core): 40 marks · 45 minsPaper 22 Multiple Choice (Extended): 40 marks · 45 minsPaper 32 Theory (Core): 80 marks · 75 minsPaper 42 Theory (Extended): 80 marks · 75 minsPaper 52 Practical Test: 40 marks · 75 minsPaper 62 Alternative to Practical: 40 marks · 60 mins

Top chapters

Experimental design · 36 marksRate of reaction · 32 marksIdentification of ions and gases · 30 marks

Executive Verdict & Performance Overview

The May/June 2026 Cambridge IGCSE Chemistry (0620) suite maintains rigorous standards, effectively differentiating candidate capability across foundational recall, mathematical processing, and practical application. Core papers emphasize fundamental periodic trends, states of matter, and basic qualitative tests, whereas Extended tiers demand multi-step quantitative competence, detailed dynamic equilibrium shifts via Le Chatelier's principle, and precise organic synthesis pathways.

Where the Marks Lie

Substantial mark allocations are concentrated in key areas:

Organic Chemistry & Functional Groups: Naming conventions (such as propan-1-ol vs. propan-2-ol), displayed formula drawing for esters (e.g., ethyl ethanoate / propyl esters), and fermentation condition recall.
Energetics & Reaction Kinetics: Enthalpy profiles involving activation energy \(E_a\) and overall \(\Delta H\), as well as multi-step bond energy calculations requiring systematic accounting of broken and formed bonds.
Salts, Redox & Stoichiometry: Quantitative precipitation methods, writing net ionic equations with state symbols (\(\text{Pb}^{2+}\text{(aq)} + \text{SO}_4^{2-}\text{(aq)} \rightarrow \text{PbSO}_4\text{(s)}\)), and mole/mass ratio calculations.
Experimental Design & Qualitative Analysis: The 6-mark practical design question requiring full experimental procedures for metal extraction from ores, alongside precise observations for flame tests and transition metal precipitation.

Examiner Pitfalls & High-Frequency Errors

Examiner reports and mark schemes highlight recurrent candidate slip-ups:

Imprecise Terminology: Confusing 'intermolecular forces' with covalent bonds when describing boiling of molecular substances like bromine, or omitting 'oppositely charged ions' in ionic lattice definitions.
Equation Details: Leaving out state symbols or writing incorrect oxidation state designations (e.g., writing full neutral spectator species instead of net ionic equations).
Graphing & Practical Data: Forgetting that increasing reagent volume while keeping total mole ratios identical changes the concentration and rate profile rather than final yield; drawing sketchy, non-smooth best-fit curves; and omitting units in mean rate calculations (\(\text{cm}^3/\text{s}\)).

Revision Strategy & Exam Predictions

Candidates preparing for upcoming series should focus high revision ROI on experimental planning templates, mastery of the qualitative analysis notes table, and disciplined execution of bond energy tables. Equilibrium responses must always state the initial disruption, how the position shifts, and the resulting concentration change to secure full marks.

Ready to test yourself?

Turn these notes into exam-style practice. Get unlimited AI questions on this topic with instant marking and explanations.

Practice This Topic

Charts

Marks by chapter

See where the marks were concentrated so revision time goes to the highest-value topics.

Question type mix

Compare the mark share of each paper section and question type.

Multiple Choice80 marks · 80 questions
Short Answer & Recall58 marks · 42 questions
Calculations & Data Analysis44 marks · 18 questions
Equations & Chemical Formulae42 marks · 22 questions
Structure & Bonding Diagrams28 marks · 12 questions
Practical Investigation & 6-Mark Planning68 marks · 16 questions

Mark accessibility

Estimate which marks were basic, mid-level, or high-difficulty.

81%within easy or medium reach

115

145

easy: 115 marksmedium: 145 markshard: 60 marks

Difficulty trend

Compare difficulty across recent years.

Command word frequency

Spot common command words so answers match the expected response style.

Skill weighting

Shows the skill mix this paper tested most heavily.

Study ROI

Higher bubbles carry more marks; bubbles further left are easier. Start with the topics that sit high and to the left.

Experimental Planning & Apparatus Selection

36 marks · Difficulty 2.6

Rate Graphs, Dilution & Collision Theory

32 marks · Difficulty 2.7

Qualitative Analysis (Cation, Anion & Gas Tests)

30 marks · Difficulty 2.1

Organic Homologous Series & Reactions

26 marks · Difficulty 2.8

Bond Energy & Reaction Profile Diagrams

22 marks · Difficulty 3.4

Equilibria & Le Chatelier's Principle

20 marks · Difficulty 3.8

Time vs marks

Compare marks with suggested time allocation to plan exam pacing.

marksmins

Next-year prediction

Topics worth watching next year, and why. These are informed guesses from past papers, not a forecast.

Polymers & Addition/Condensation Polymerisation

Condensation polymerisation mechanisms and nylon/PET structures had minor representation in this specific theory sitting, making comprehensive monomer/polymer questions highly likely in subsequent series.

Electrolysis Calculations & Quantitative Faradaic Relationships

Electrolysis remains heavily emphasized across all years; future extended papers typically rotate back to brine electrolysis and electroplating half-equations.

Acid-Base Titration Calculations

Detailed mole-concentration-titre volumetric calculations were light in Paper 42, pointing towards a dedicated multi-step stoichiometry titration question in the following exam.

Fuels & Fractional Distillation of Petroleum

Petroleum fractions and catalytic cracking mechanism questions have cycled out of major theory mark pools and are prime for recurrence.

Topic-year heatmap

Compare topic weight by year to spot recurring and returning areas.

Jun 2023 (V1)

Jun 2023 (V2)

Jun 2023 (V3)

Nov 2023 (V1)

Nov 2023 (V2)

Nov 2023 (V3)

Jun 2024 (V1)

Jun 2024 (V2)

Jun 2024 (V3)

Nov 2024 (V1)

Nov 2024 (V2)

Nov 2024 (V3)

Jun 2025 (V1)

Jun 2025 (V2)

Jun 2025 (V3)

Nov 2025 (V1)

Nov 2025 (V2)

Nov 2025 (V3)

Jun 2026 (V1)

Jun 2026 (V2)

Rate of reaction

Electrolysis

Experimental design

Identification of ions and gases

The mole and the Avogadro constant

Reversible reactions and equilibrium

Formulae, functional groups and terminology

Preparation of salts

Atomic structure and the Periodic Table

Polymers

Examiner insights

Official report

Common pitfalls

Confusing intermolecular forces with covalent bonding when explaining state changes of diatomic molecules (e.g. Br2).
Writing full non-ionic species or omitting state symbols when an ionic equation with state symbols is explicitly requested.
Failing to account for sign convention in bond energy calculations: bond breaking is endothermic (+), bond forming is exothermic (-).
In practical design, omitting essential initial steps such as crushing/grinding solid ores or specifying a named suitable reducing agent.
Incorrectly identifying isomers by providing molecular formulae rather than differentiated structural or displayed representations.

Misconceptions

Believing dynamic equilibrium means the concentrations of reactants and products are equal, rather than recognizing that concentrations remain constant while rates are equal.
Assuming dilution increases total gas produced, rather than recognizing that adding water only alters concentration and rate without altering limiting reagent yield.
Treating transition metals as chemically identical to Group I metals rather than noting differences in density, melting point, and catalytic/coloured nature.

Where marks are lost

Drawing non-vertical or double-headed arrows for enthalpy change (ΔH) on reaction profile diagrams instead of a single downward arrow from reactant to product energy level.
Omitting the unit 'cm3/s' in quantitative rate calculations.
Giving generic descriptions (e.g. 'fizzing stops') without linking to complete reagent consumption in excess solid/acid preparations.
Failing to specify non-bonding lone pairs when completing dot-and-cross outer shell diagrams for covalent molecules (e.g. NF3, NH3).

Estimated grade boundary

Updated: Sep 23, 2026

Source: Cambridge IGCSE grade thresholds (official)

Grade	Mark	Percentage
A*	168/200	84%
A	138/200	69%
B	108/200	54%
C	79/200	40%
D	68/200	34%
E	57/200	29%

The source quotes these grade boundaries out of 200 marks, while this page uses the paper total of 320. Compare the percentages, not the raw marks.

Official grade boundaries published by Cambridge IGCSE grade thresholds (official).

Know what the examiners want. Now go get those marks

thinka is an AI practice app used by 100,000+ students to drill questions and get instant feedback on every answer. You already know the high-frequency topics and where marks are lost. Now practice those specifically on thinka and turn this analysis into actual marks.

Start Practicing Free See pricing

Know what's tested? Drill those topics on thinka. AI questions, instant marking.

Start Practicing Free