Which grant management software fits your foundation?
Every tool can build an application form. The real test starts after the panel votes: agreements, staged payments and three years of grantee reports.
One foundation that scored 482 applications with 385 reviewers described its own setup in a public tender: one tool for applications, another for the review panel, spreadsheets for grantees and payments. Its verdict: too many tools, some of them inefficient, and applicants forced to open accounts on platforms that barely talk to each other. That is the typical stack, and it fails at the same point every time: after selection.
The short answer. Good Grants is the best pick for most foundations: $3,950 a year, unlimited users, grant agreement signing included. Optimy is the most complete option for a corporate foundation running several programs, priced on quote. Common Grant Application suits a small family foundation, from $175 a month with no contract. Foundant GLM fits a lean team that gives year-round, Submit.com one large annual call, and Salesforce the foundation that already runs on it.
Applying for grants rather than awarding them? Read our grant software for nonprofits instead. Running a public or government program? Our grant management software guide for all funders covers that. This page is for the foundation that gives the money.
The ranking is editorial: a sponsored placement is always labeled on its card, and no affiliate link changes a score.
Six kinds of foundation, six answers
$3,950 a year, agreements signed in the tool
Most complete for corporate foundationsAllocated, committed and paid amounts, on quote
Lightest for a family foundationFrom $175 a month, cancel anytime
Best for a lean team giving year-round$4,250 to $9,500 a year, per the vendor
Best for one large annual call€5,995 a year, 1,000 applicants
Best if you already run SalesforceGrantmaking in Max editions, $285 per user
6 grant management tools for foundations, compared
Every ranked tool covers a foundation's full cycle: it takes applications, runs a review panel or committee, and tracks the grant after the vote (agreement, payments, reports). Prices come from vendor pages. When a vendor publishes no figure, the cell says so: on quote.
| Best for | What sets it apart | Free plan | Team size | Visit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Good Grants | Best for most foundations | Unlimited users, built-in agreement signing | 4.4/5 | Intro $3,950/yr | — | 1 to 10 calls a year | Visit → |
| 2 | Optimy | Most complete for corporate foundations | Blind review, scheduled payments | 4.2/5 | On quote | — | Several programs, several countries | Visit → |
| 3 | Common Grant Application | Lightest for a family foundation | Monthly billing, unlimited reviewers | 4.1/5 | $175 to $250/mo | — | Under 50 applications a year | Visit → |
| 4 | Foundant GLM | Best for a lean team | Full lifecycle built for foundations | 4.0/5 | On quote ($4,250 to $9,500/yr stated) | — | Staff of 1 to 5 | Visit → |
| 5 | Submit.com | Best for one large annual call | 1,000 applicants, 20 reviewers on Starter | 3.9/5 | Starter €5,995/yr | — | One prize or annual call | Visit → |
| 6 | Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud | Best if you run Salesforce | Grants and relationships in one database | 3.8/5 | $285/user/mo (Max) | — | Large foundation already on Salesforce | Visit → |
Good Grants, Common Grant Application and Submit.com keep the scores from our all-funders guide, and Salesforce keeps the one from our nonprofit CRM ranking: a tool has one score across our pages and languages. Optimy and Foundant GLM get their first score here.
Is your tool missing from this page? Email us: hello@hackceleration.com
How we compared and ranked
This page is for the person who actually runs a foundation's giving: the executive director of a family foundation with two staff, the program officer at a private foundation, the CSR lead behind a corporate foundation. You know your funding criteria. What you need is a system that holds from the day a call opens to a grantee's final report, sometimes three years later.
We reviewed 14 funder platforms on their official pages, then read user reviews and tenders published by foundations, starting with the complaints: heavy implementations, clunky admin screens, payment tracking sold on a higher tier. A tool only makes the ranking if we confirmed all three jobs on the vendor's own site: intake, panel review, post-award tracking. Post-award tracking carries the most weight because that is where foundations drift back to spreadsheets.
- Post-award trackingGrant agreements, payment schedules, grantee reports, and which plan includes them.30%
- Review and scoringExternal reviewers, weighted scoring, conflicts of interest, blind review.25%
- Clear pricing and volume costPublished price, and what happens as applications, programs and users grow.20%
- Application portalConditional forms, eligibility screening, languages, attachments.15%
- Ease of setupOnboarding, training, and usability for a team that opens it once a year.10%
The ranking is editorial: a sponsored placement is always labeled on its card, and no affiliate link changes a score.
How often do you give, and for how long?
Two questions rule out half the market. How many grant cycles do you run each year? And how many years do you follow a grantee after the award? Most foundations fit one of these three profiles.
Family foundation giving on a rolling basis
Twenty or so grants a year, a board that approves, one or two staff. Your real need is a clean history per grantee, outstanding commitments, and a docket you can share with trustees. Common Grant Application (from $175 a month) or Foundant GLM handle that without an IT project.
One annual call with a big review panel
One peak a year, hundreds of applications, volunteer reviewers from outside. The hard part is assigning applications and consolidating scores. Good Grants (unlimited users) or Submit.com (20 reviewers on Starter) cope with that load.
Corporate foundation with several programs
Several calls a year, employees who vote, regional staff who shortlist, and an impact report owed to the parent company. Optimy is built for this, and Good Grants Premium ($7,900 a year, 10 forms) is the alternative with a known price.
- Count last year's grant cycles: one annual call and rolling grants do not need the same tool
- List who scores: board members, staff, outside experts. Per-user pricing gets expensive with a 100-person panel
- Check the length of your commitments: a three-year grant needs a payment schedule per grantee, with a reminder before each payment. Optimy, Foundant GLM and Good Grants handle it; Submit.com only above Starter
- If you pay grantees abroad, ask about multi-currency payments before the demo, not after
Good Grants
Good Grants covers all three foundation jobs without add-on modules. Applicants submit through a portal. Your panel scores, ranks and moves applications through decision stages, with voting on Premium. After the award, it tracks multiple budgets with unlimited allocations and handles grant agreement signing. That last part matters: the agreement goes out from the tool, not through a chain of PDFs.
Pricing is the clearest in the foundation segment. Intro costs $3,950 a year for one form, Premium $7,900 for ten, and both count users without limit, so a 150-person review panel does not move the bill. The vendor also states it takes no cut of your disbursements.
- Grant agreement signing on the Intro plan
- Unlimited users: board, staff and outside reviewers
- Up to 10,000 applications, multiple budgets
- ✓Public price, no fee on disbursements
- ✓A large panel costs nothing extra
- ✓14-day trial to build a real call
- ✗Annual billing only
- ✗Intro allows one form: a second program means Premium
- ✗Users find the form builder and panel setup unintuitive at first
- ✗It tracks payments but does not send money: that stays with your bank
The default pick for a foundation leaving spreadsheets on a fixed budget. Start on Intro for one annual call. Move to Premium for a second program or board voting in the tool.
Optimy
Optimy, based in Brussels and Toronto, goes furthest on panel integrity. Criteria are weighted, review can be blind, conflicts of interest are flagged automatically, and scores stay hidden until the round closes so no reviewer anchors on the others. AI suggestions exist too, but a person validates them before they count.
Post-award is just as deep. Each program tracks three amounts: allocated, committed, paid. Payments can be scheduled, agreements are generated from templates and signed in the tool, and reports feed CSRD-style impact reporting for a European parent company. Forms run in 22+ languages. The vendor cites 330+ organizations in 25+ countries.
- Blind review with scores hidden until close
- Allocated, committed and paid amounts per program
- Template agreements signed in the tool
- ✓Best-protected review panel in this ranking
- ✓Finest multi-year tracking
- ✓Eligibility pre-screen filters off-topic applicants
- ✗No published price: you cannot compare before a demo
- ✗Built for a CSR team, oversized for 20 grants a year
- ✗One call run on Optimy stated data retention of one year after closing: export your history
The strongest tool if employees vote, you fund in several countries, and you report to a parent group. For a family foundation it is more tool than you need.
Grantmaking vendors keep merging and repricing. Get the changes that affect your foundation
Common Grant Application
Common Grant Application is priced for small funders, using three dials: admins, applications, and dollars distributed. With 1 or 2 admins, up to 50 applications and up to $500,000 granted, you pay $175 to $250 a month. The vendor quotes a starting price of $2,100 a year.
For a family foundation the appeal goes beyond price. Reviewers are unlimited, so every family member or trustee can read and score. Post-award tracking is included, along with setup, support and training. Billing is monthly by card: if the foundation pauses giving for a year, you stop paying.
- Unlimited reviewers on every tier
- Setup, support and training included
- Month to month, cancel anytime
- ✓Only ranked tool billed monthly
- ✓Pricing built for small volumes
- ✓Free for applicants
- ✗Card payment required
- ✗Importing your past data carries an extra charge with no published figure
- ✗Final price can vary: get your tier confirmed in writing
The right fit for a foundation making around twenty grants a year that wants a clean grantee history. Past 5 admins, Good Grants becomes the better deal.
Foundant GLM
Foundant Grant Lifecycle Manager (GLM) is one of the established names in US grantmaking. Portal, committee review, payments and follow-up reports sit in one cycle, with setups for family, community, education and research funders. One reviewer calls it very well suited to the small-staffed foundation, and migration support is the most praised point across reviews.
Pricing goes through a request form by organization type. On its own blog, Foundant puts GLM at $4,250 to $9,500 a year depending on size and features: a range, not a quote. Since 2024, Foundant sits in the same group as SmartSimple and GivingData, so ask about the product roadmap before a multi-year contract.
- Full grant lifecycle designed for foundations
- Well-regarded migration support
- Setups by foundation type
- ✓Sized for a team of one to five
- ✓Price range published by the vendor
- ✓Payments and reports in the same tool
- ✗No firm price without a quote
- ✗Occasional users forget the approval steps between annual cycles
- ✗Standard workflows leave little room for an unusual process
A solid choice for a small foundation that gives year-round. Get a Common Grant Application quote too: under 50 applications, the price gap can be wide.
Submit.com
Submit.com, based in Ireland, handles the selection phase well. Starter, at €5,995 a year (euro pricing only), takes 1,000 applicants, 5 admins and 20 reviewers on one program. For an annual prize or a single open call, the scope is clear.
The limit is specific and it matters to a foundation. Grant tracking (amounts awarded and drawdowns), payments, authenticated e-signature, anonymized review and the audit log are not in Starter. To follow a grantee over three years, you need Pro or Enterprise, both on quote.
- 20 reviewers on Starter
- 1,000 applicants included
- Published entry price
- ✓Clean scope for a single call
- ✓European vendor
- ✓A 20-person panel at no extra cost
- ✗Payment tracking and anonymized review missing from Starter
- ✗One program on Starter
- ✗Billed in euros only
Pick it if your challenge is sorting many applications once a year. If it is paying in three installments and chasing reports, Good Grants does that on its first plan.
Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud
Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud includes grantmaking: applicant portal, review and grant tracking in the same database as your contacts. If your foundation already tracks partners in Salesforce, the grantee, their applications and their payments live on one record.
The catch is the edition. Grantmaking only ships in Sales Max or Service Max, at $285 per user per month. Core ($70) and Advanced ($125) do not include it, and the 10 donated licenses are Core, so no grantmaking. Add an implementation partner, which Salesforce does not price. In Spain, Fundación ONCE went the other way and tendered a project to build its open-call tool on its existing Salesforce.
- Grants and relationships on one record
- Applicant portal included in the module
- Salesforce reports and dashboards
- ✓One database for the whole foundation
- ✓Highly customizable with a partner
- ✓Published license price
- ✗Grantmaking only in Max editions, $285 per user
- ✗Donated licenses exclude grantmaking
- ✗Implementation project not priced by the vendor
Worth it only if Salesforce is already your foundation's core system. Otherwise read our Salesforce alternatives page first and compare with Good Grants.
Other foundation platforms, and why they are not ranked
These names show up in every search. Some are excellent for a very large US foundation; others do not show the full foundation cycle on their site. Here is what each does and where it falls short.
Fluxx: built for very large foundations
Large fundersFluxx covers the full cycle with rare configuration depth. Reviews are blunt about the cost of that depth: heavy implementation (migration, testing, training), a limited number of training seats before extra charges, and forms edited in Liquid templating code. One user switching away called it a juggernaut next to Submittable.
No public price. Worth a look only with dedicated systems staff and several million dollars granted each year.
- Price
- On quote
- Best for
- Foundations with a systems team
Submittable: easy to launch, disbursements on Enterprise
Book a meetingA philanthropic organization that chose it found it much easier to set up than Fluxx. Submittable runs multi-stage review and financial tracking in its Grant plan, but funds distribution only comes with Enterprise.
No published price, only a meeting. Users mention steep jumps between pricing tiers and a crowded review screen once applications and labels pile up. Submittable bought WizeHive (Zengine) in 2024: if you are on Zengine, ask what your tool will be in two years.
- Price
- On quote after a meeting
- Limit
- Disbursements on Enterprise only
GivingData: private foundation compliance, built in
Private foundationsGivingData speaks the language of US private foundations. Its portal includes tax status checks and a Candid integration. Pro adds grantee bank account management, expenditure responsibility tracking and a board docket. Enterprise adds multi-currency requests and payments; OFAC screening and e-signature are options.
Every plan (Go, Pro, Enterprise) is on quote. Since 2024 it sits in the same group as Foundant and SmartSimple.
- Price
- On quote
- Strength
- Expenditure responsibility, multi-currency
SmartSimple: configurable, with a setup fee
On quoteSmartSimple Cloud, built in Canada, charges a one-time implementation fee on top of the subscription; you request a pricing proposal. It suits funders with complex, multi-program workflows who have time for a proper rollout.
- Price
- On quote plus implementation fee
Blackbaud Grantmaking: complete, but heavy
Ask about pricingScoring rubrics, external reviewers, payment schedules and Raiser's Edge NXT ties are all there. Reviews are harsher: the interface feels clunky to several users, and one foundation put its annual maintenance contract at the very top of its budget.
Hosting is offered in the US, UK, Australia and Canada. That is fine for a US funder; a European foundation should check with its data protection lead.
- Price
- On quote
- Hosting
- US, UK, Australia, Canada
ZoomGrants: priced per program
On quoteZoomGrants targets private and family foundations. Its pricing model is clear in shape: an annual account fee plus a per-program fee based on application volume. The figures come on request. Good for one or two stable programs; every new program adds a line to the invoice.
- Price
- Account fee plus per-program fee
Panels, agreements, payments: the settings that keep you out of spreadsheets
These come from foundation tenders and user feedback, and they apply whatever tool you choose.
With 300 reviewers, build small tables, not one long list
ReviewPast a few dozen reviewers, nobody reads everything. Split applications into small themed tables and get every application scored by at least two people. The foundation with 385 reviewers bought a separate tool just to build tables and consolidate scores. Check that your platform does the assignment itself before you sign.
- Tools that do it
- Good Grants, Optimy, Submit.com
Write the grant agreement before the call opens
Post-awardAmount, installment dates, required reports, clawback terms: draft the template agreement while you build the form, so application fields fill it later. Good Grants and Optimy send it for signature from the tool, which removes weeks of PDF back-and-forth between the vote and the first payment.
- Built-in signing
- Good Grants, Optimy
Tie each installment to a report
Multi-yearA three-year grant never goes out in one payment. Set a schedule per grantee: first installment on signature, second after the interim report, balance after the final report. Let the tool remind the grantee before each deadline; automatic reminders are one of the gains Fondation Charcot reported after moving off paper.
- Native schedules
- Optimy, Foundant GLM, Good Grants
Give trustees a docket, not a login
GovernanceSmall foundations need to share requests with trustees who will never learn the tool. GivingData Pro builds a docket; elsewhere, export the shortlisted applications with scores to one PDF or spreadsheet per meeting. Keep the export: it is your record of why each grant was made.
- Native docket
- GivingData Pro
Funding with other foundations? One form, shared criteria
CollaborationSome corporate foundations run joint regional calls with shared criteria, a shared agreement and a shared reporting rhythm. Choose a tool where each funder keeps its own reviewers but the form stays single. With unlimited users, Good Grants avoids paying a seat per partner.
- Key point
- Unlimited users
The prices you see online are often not the vendors' prices
Out of 14 funder platforms we reviewed, 5 show a figure on their site: Good Grants, Evalato, Submit.com, Common Grant Application and Salesforce. Foundant gives a range on its blog. The rest send you to a meeting. Software directories fill the gap with numbers that often contradict official pages: one lists Evalato at a few dozen dollars a month, while the vendor starts at €2,500 per program.
What pushes the bill up
Volume. Evalato bills per program and application tier, Submit.com caps Starter at 1,000 applicants, Common Grant Application moves tiers with dollars granted, ZoomGrants adds a fee per program. A call that works costs more the next year.
What is sold separately
Post-award tracking, often. Submit.com puts it in Pro, Submittable puts disbursements in Enterprise, Salesforce keeps grantmaking for Max editions. Add implementation at SmartSimple and data import at Common Grant Application.
What disappears
The market is consolidating. Foundant, SmartSimple and GivingData share a group since 2024, and Submittable bought WizeHive the same year. A three-year contract needs an exit clause and a full data export.
- Get a written price for your real application volume, then for double: that is the price of a successful year
- Ask which plan includes staged payments and agreement signing
- Ask where applicant data is hosted and who the subprocessors are
- Export every closed cycle to Excel or CSV, and put the data retention period in the contract
- Get implementation and training priced separately, including how many training seats are included
What foundations ask before choosing
How much does grant management software cost for a small foundation?
From about $2,100 to $7,900 a year among vendors that publish prices: Common Grant Application from $2,100, Good Grants $3,950 to $7,900, and Foundant states $4,250 to $9,500. Enterprise platforms are on quote and often add a setup fee. Ask for the price at double your current volume.
What is the best grant management software for small family foundations?
Common Grant Application if you make under 50 grants a year and want monthly billing; Foundant GLM if you want a tool built around family foundations and can work from a quote. Both include post-award tracking, which matters more than the form.
Is there free grant management software for foundations?
Not among the funder tools we compared. Applicants use them for free, but foundations pay. A spreadsheet or a base like Airtable works for a handful of grants, without a secure portal or report reminders.
What is the difference between grantmaking and grant seeking software?
Grantmaking software takes and scores applications and tracks awards. Grant seeking software helps a nonprofit find funders and write proposals. For the second, see our grant software for nonprofits.
Can grant management software integrate with accounting?
Through exports, always; through direct connectors, sometimes. Most ranked tools track allocated and paid amounts without moving the money; Submit.com offers Stripe payments, but not on Starter. Export the payment schedule monthly to your nonprofit accounting software and reconcile.
How do you run a review panel with hundreds of reviewers?
Small themed tables, at least two scores per application, scores hidden until close. Pick a tool without per-user pricing, or the bill follows the size of your panel. Keep the rubric short: the 385-reviewer foundation scored on just 4 criteria.
Do applicants need to create an account?
Usually yes: the account lets them resume a draft and file reports later. It stays free for them. Add an eligibility pre-screen, as Optimy allows, so off-topic projects stop before creating an account.