Knowledge transfer among peers can favor learning. On the other hand, coevaluation, as understood in this investigation, implies the evaluation of peers' assessment when transferring knowledge developed by them. Additionally, knowledge transfer and coevaluation contribute in the development of certain competences in assignments that comprise: 1) sharing the results with the whole class, 2) analysis, 3) commitment and 4) responsibility. However, objectivity when assessing peer performance is an issue and a concern, basically due to the fact that, although peers are recipients of the information being shared, they do not get involved in the evaluation as stakeholders. As part of the evolution of learning, students need to evolve to recognize their capability to evaluate, since for some, peer evaluation can be intimidating. In this investigation, the use of AHP have been applied in three courses and to a total of 103 students in engineering at Universidad Metropolitana, particularly those almost at the end of their programs to investigate the feasibility of getting a more objective coevaluation of students by their peers. Methodology, results and final grading are discussed and next steps are presented. There is still much to do in this area to get objectivity from evaluation since high inconsistencies were found and final grading allocation has not yet been defined. However, AHP is still considered the best technique to address this problem.