Grant Management Systems Compared: Fluxx, Submittable, Foundant, SmartSimple and More

The market for grant management software has never been more crowded. A foundation that started managing grants by spreadsheet a decade ago now faces at least a dozen credible platforms — each making similar claims about workflow automation, flexible forms, and reporting dashboards.

The real differences lie in implementation complexity, pricing transparency, UK-readiness, AI capabilities, and which part of the grant lifecycle each platform actually does well. This guide covers 16 platforms in detail, from the enterprise incumbents to the challengers, so you can shortlist the two or three that fit your programme without spending months on demo calls.

All platforms below are designed primarily for grantmakers (foundations, trusts, corporate social responsibility teams, government agencies) rather than grant seekers.

How these platforms differ most

Before comparing individual tools, it helps to understand the four axes that separate them:

1. Configurability vs. time-to-value — highly configurable platforms (SmartSimple, Fluxx) can handle almost any workflow but require months of setup. Opinionated platforms (Submittable, Foundant GLM) launch faster but bend less.
2. Grantmaker focus vs. general use — some platforms are built exclusively for funders; others are adapted from submission management, CRM, or project management tools.
3. Geographic fit — most leading platforms are North American in origin. UK and Australian grantmakers have to weigh whether US-centric compliance assumptions create friction.
4. AI maturity — a minority of platforms have moved beyond basic automation into genuine AI-assisted assessment, due diligence, and report generation.

Fluxx Grantmaker

What it is: An enterprise grant management platform built exclusively for grantmakers. Fluxx has been widely adopted by major US foundations and has a significant presence among larger UK trusts.

Best for: Large foundations managing complex, multi-programme portfolios where deep customisation and powerful analytics are worth a long implementation.

Key features: Fluxx's headline differentiator is Grantelligence™, its built-in analytics engine offering more than 7,000 dynamic visualisations. The platform supports unlimited users, unlimited application forms, and unlimited workflow configurations within the base licence. Its relationship management layer tracks connections between grantees, proposals, and stakeholders.

Pricing: Custom, quote-based. Fluxx offers annual pricing with unlimited users — a meaningful advantage for large teams — but no free trial or free tier. Implementation is a separate cost. Budget for a multi-month onboarding process.

Limitations: Administrators face a steep learning curve. Making changes to application forms can require Liquid code — Fluxx's templating language — which creates a dependency on either technical staff or the Fluxx support team. Not well-suited to smaller foundations that need quick deployment.

Submittable

What it is: Originally a submissions management platform for literary journals and creative competitions, Submittable has evolved into a widely-used grant management tool for foundations, government agencies, and corporate CSR teams.

Best for: Organisations that need to launch a grant programme quickly with minimal technical overhead. Strong for CSR teams and government grant portals where user experience for applicants matters.

Key features: Multi-stage review workflows, impact dashboards, team collaboration tools, and one of the cleaner applicant-facing experiences on the market. Submittable's strength is speed: many organisations are running live programmes within weeks. It also supports scholarships, fellowships, and awards alongside grants.

Pricing: Entry plans start at approximately $258 per month (up to five users), with enterprise pricing available on application. More transparent than most competitors at the entry level.

Limitations: Submittable is not as deep as Fluxx or SmartSimple in full-lifecycle grant management. Advanced reporting, complex payment schedules, and monitoring workflows require the higher tiers. Some users report that customisation options are more limited than the marketing implies.

SmartSimple Cloud

What it is: A highly configurable cloud platform originally designed for universities and research funders. SmartSimple has expanded to serve foundations, government agencies, and corporate grantmakers with complex, multi-level requirements.

Best for: Large organisations with diverse programme portfolios that need bespoke workflows across multiple funding streams, particularly where integration with existing enterprise systems is required.

Key features: End-to-end grant lifecycle management, a strong API layer, enterprise-grade security, and a configuration depth that can replicate almost any workflow. SmartSimple has a particular presence in the research funding space where multi-tiered, multi-institution grants are common.

Pricing: Custom pricing. Implementation projects typically run for several months. In 2023, Foundant Technologies announced a strategic alignment with SmartSimple, bringing both platforms under a shared ownership structure while maintaining separate products.

Limitations: The same configurability that makes SmartSimple powerful makes it complex to administer. Mid-sized foundations often find it over-engineered for their needs. Change management and ongoing administration require dedicated internal resource.

Foundant Grant Lifecycle Manager (GLM)

What it is: Foundant's flagship platform, positioned as the accessible alternative to the enterprise incumbents. GLM is a cloud-based system focused specifically on the philanthropic sector.

Best for: Small to mid-sized foundations and community foundations that want strong out-of-the-box functionality without enterprise-level complexity or price tags.

Key features: Application management, customisable forms, panel assessment workflows, grant agreements, reporting, and a dedicated grantee portal. Foundant is consistently praised for customer support and onboarding quality — an important consideration for smaller teams without in-house technical expertise.

Pricing: Custom pricing based on grant volume and organisational size. Generally positioned as more accessible than Fluxx or SmartSimple, though still a significant investment for very small funders. Foundant now owns SmartSimple, giving it two distinct tiers of product.

Limitations: Less configurable than the enterprise platforms. Some users note that Foundant works best when your grantmaking processes fit reasonably well into its standard workflow model. Deep customisation requires workarounds.

Blackbaud Grantmaking

What it is: The grantmaking module within Blackbaud's broader nonprofit technology suite. Blackbaud is one of the largest providers of software to the charity sector globally, and Grantmaking benefits from integrations with its fundraising, CRM, and financial tools.

Best for: Foundations that are already using Blackbaud's financial or fundraising products and want a single-vendor ecosystem. Large, well-resourced philanthropic organisations.

Key features: Full lifecycle grant management from application through to reporting, payment processing, and compliance tracking. The key advantage over standalone platforms is native integration with Blackbaud's Financial Edge NXT and Raiser's Edge — reducing data re-entry between grants, finance, and donor management.

Pricing: Custom, enterprise pricing. Blackbaud products tend to sit at the premium end of the market. Total cost of ownership (including implementation, training, and integrations) is a significant consideration.

Limitations: The Blackbaud ecosystem is powerful but expensive, and customers report that leaving it is difficult once embedded. The grantmaking module may not be the right choice for foundations that don't also use Blackbaud's other products.

Bonterra Grants Management

What it is: Bonterra (formerly EveryAction and CyberGrants) is a platform created through the merger of several nonprofit technology companies. Its Grants Management product draws on the CyberGrants heritage and serves foundations and corporate giving programmes.

Best for: Corporate foundations and large grantmakers that manage high volumes of grants through structured, automated workflows. Strong in the US corporate social responsibility market.

Key features: A dynamic workflow engine with configurable rules and permissions, an applicant-facing portal, budget management, and compliance tracking. Bonterra positions its automation capabilities as the core value proposition, particularly for teams processing hundreds of grants per year.

Pricing: Custom pricing. Bonterra offers a free trial, which is relatively unusual for an enterprise platform in this space.

Limitations: Bonterra's product suite has grown through acquisition, which creates some inconsistency in the user experience across modules. The platform is primarily built around US compliance requirements; UK-specific needs (Charity Commission verification, GDPR-specific data handling) may require additional configuration.

SmartyGrants

What it is: The dominant grant management platform in Australia and New Zealand, used by government agencies, foundations, and councils across the region. SmartyGrants is built specifically for grantmakers and has deep roots in public sector grant programmes.

Best for: Australian and New Zealand grantmakers. Also used by some UK public sector funders, particularly local authorities, for its straightforward application management and reporting tools.

Key features: Online application forms, eligibility checks, assessment panels, grant agreements, acquittals (the Australian equivalent of final reports), and strong reporting. SmartyGrants has invested significantly in its data and analytics capabilities, branding its approach as "grants management intelligence."

Pricing: SmartyGrants is subscription-based with pricing tied to the volume of grants managed. It is generally considered mid-market in pricing terms.

Limitations: Primarily optimised for Australian compliance and reporting contexts. UK funders will find that some terminology and workflows assume an Australian regulatory environment. The interface is functional but less modern than some newer competitors.

WizeHive (Submittable Zengine)

What it is: WizeHive is a flexible platform for foundations, nonprofits, and educational institutions, built around a highly customisable form and workflow engine called Zengine. Note that WizeHive was acquired by Submittable in 2022, though it continues to operate under its own brand.

Best for: Organisations with non-standard grant workflows, multiple programme types, or complex review processes that don't fit neatly into pre-configured systems.

Key features: Drag-and-drop form builder, configurable workflows, real-time collaboration for reviewers, detailed reporting, and an API for integrations. WizeHive's differentiation is genuine flexibility — it can handle scholarship management, award programmes, and grant applications within the same platform.

Pricing: Custom pricing. WizeHive tends to be positioned as a mid-market option.

Limitations: The flexibility that makes WizeHive appealing also means configuration takes time. Out-of-the-box, it requires more setup than more opinionated platforms. Now part of the Submittable group, its long-term independent roadmap is a reasonable question to raise with the vendor.

GivingData

What it is: A purpose-built platform for private, family, and independent foundations. GivingData emphasises data visualisation and portfolio insights alongside workflow management, and is particularly associated with trust-based philanthropy approaches.

Best for: Family foundations, private foundations, and philanthropies that want to combine streamlined operations with meaningful portfolio analysis. Good fit for funders moving away from relationship-heavy email-based management towards structured data.

Key features: Grant lifecycle management, budget tracking, grantee relationship management, and a distinctive data visualisation layer that helps programme officers understand their portfolios at a glance. GivingData is built with the view that grantmakers should spend less time in their system and more time with grantees.

Pricing: Custom pricing. GivingData is positioned as mid-market for foundations.

Limitations: Less well-known outside North America. The platform's depth in certain areas (such as complex multi-tranche payment management) may not match the enterprise platforms. UK-specific compliance features are limited.

Optimy

What it is: A Belgian platform that combines grant management with corporate social responsibility tracking and impact measurement. Optimy serves foundations, corporate foundations, and CSR departments across Europe.

Best for: European grantmakers, particularly corporate foundations that need to manage grants alongside broader CSR initiatives (employee volunteering, sponsorship, cause-related marketing) in a single system.

Key features: Application management, budget tracking, impact measurement, CSR reporting, and multi-programme management. Optimy's European base gives it stronger GDPR foundations than many North American competitors, which is relevant for UK funders.

Pricing: Custom pricing. Optimy is positioned at the mid-to-enterprise level.

Limitations: Less market presence in the UK than in continental Europe. The breadth of Optimy's CSR functionality may be unnecessary for a foundation focused purely on grantmaking. Depth in pure grant management is less established than in the dedicated platforms.

AkoyaGO

What it is: A foundation management platform built on Microsoft Dynamics 365. AkoyaGO (formerly Pearl and Akoya.net) combines grant management with CRM, financial oversight, and donor management within the Microsoft ecosystem.

Best for: Foundations already invested in Microsoft technology (Dynamics 365, Azure, Office 365) that want their grant management to integrate natively with that infrastructure. Organisations where IT governance requires enterprise Microsoft compliance certifications.

Key features: Full grant lifecycle management, relationship management CRM, fund accounting integration, geographic visualisation, and GOapply — a separate portal for online application intake and external review. Pricing is all-inclusive with no per-module charges.

Pricing: Custom pricing. Implementation typically costs approximately 60% of the first year's annual subscription — higher than some platforms, reflecting the Microsoft Dynamics integration work. No free tier.

Limitations: The Microsoft Dynamics dependency is both the key strength and the main constraint. Organisations outside the Microsoft ecosystem will find AkoyaGO a poor fit. The implementation overhead is significant.

Benevity

What it is: A corporate social responsibility platform focused on employee giving, volunteering, and grantmaking. Benevity is one of the largest platforms in the corporate philanthropy space, used by many Fortune 500 companies.

Best for: Large corporations managing employee donation matching, volunteering programmes, and corporate grants through a single employee-facing platform. Not appropriate for independent foundations or public sector funders.

Key features: Employee giving and donation matching, volunteer tracking, corporate grant management, and impact reporting. The platform's strength is unifying employee engagement with corporate grantmaking — a combination most dedicated grant management systems don't attempt.

Pricing: Enterprise pricing. Benevity is priced for large corporate customers and is not a realistic option for smaller foundations or trusts.

Limitations: Benevity is a corporate CSR platform that includes grant management, not a grant management system that includes CSR features. Foundations and public sector funders will find it over-engineered for their context and missing features they need (such as detailed eligibility checking and panel assessment tools).

CommunityForce

What it is: A global platform offering scholarship management, grant management, and awards management. CommunityForce has a strong presence in higher education and has expanded into foundation grants.

Best for: Organisations running scholarship programmes alongside grant programmes, or educational institutions managing grant-like funding decisions. Also used by community foundations.

Key features: Application management, reviewer portals, automated communications, scholarship-specific features (such as GPA tracking and academic eligibility verification), and grants management. The platform handles both scholarship and grant workflows within a unified system.

Pricing: Custom pricing. CommunityForce is mid-market to enterprise in positioning.

Limitations: The scholarship heritage means some features are more relevant to educational contexts than traditional grantmaking. Less established in the UK market.

Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud (Grants Management)

What it is: Salesforce's Nonprofit Cloud includes a Grants Management module that extends the Salesforce CRM platform with grantmaking-specific functionality. Through the Power of Us programme, Salesforce offers 10 free licences to eligible nonprofits.

Best for: Organisations already heavily invested in Salesforce that want their grant management integrated with their CRM, fundraising, and programme data. Mid-to-large foundations with technical Salesforce expertise on staff.

Key features: The full power of the Salesforce platform — advanced reporting, automation through Flows, AppExchange integrations, and a single source of truth for all stakeholder relationships. The Grants Management module adds application intake, review, award management, and compliance tracking.

Pricing: Salesforce pricing is user-based and complex. The Power of Us programme offers 10 free licences to qualifying nonprofits; beyond that, Nonprofit Cloud licences are significant. Implementation by a Salesforce partner adds substantially to the total cost.

Limitations: Salesforce is not a purpose-built grant management system. Out-of-the-box, the Grants Management module requires considerable configuration to match the functionality of dedicated platforms. The Salesforce ecosystem requires ongoing expertise to maintain. For organisations that don't already use Salesforce, the overhead of adopting it for grants management alone is rarely justified.

eCivis (now EUNA Grants)

What it is: A cloud-based platform designed for government agencies managing grant programmes — both as recipients of federal funding and as grantmakers distributing funding to local organisations. eCivis rebranded to EUNA Grants as part of a broader government technology consolidation.

Best for: State, county, and local government agencies. Also relevant for tribal governments and quasi-governmental bodies in the United States managing federally funded grant programmes.

Key features: Grant seeking tools (finding and applying for government grants), compliance monitoring, financial tracking, reporting, and a grantee management portal for distributing sub-grants. The compliance functionality is built around US federal requirements (including Uniform Guidance / 2 CFR 200).

Pricing: Custom pricing. Government purchasing typically involves formal procurement processes.

Limitations: eCivis is specifically designed for the US government grants landscape. UK local authorities, UK government departments, and UK-based funders will find the compliance framework and terminology does not map to their context.

OpenGrants

What it is: OpenGrants is primarily a grant discovery platform — it helps nonprofits and organisations find grant opportunities. It also includes tools to track applications and manage the grant-seeking process.

Best for: Grant seekers (nonprofits, social enterprises, researchers) looking for a more systematic approach to finding and tracking grant applications. Not a grantmaker platform.

Pricing: OpenGrants offers a freemium model, with paid tiers unlocking more grant discoveries and team features.

Limitations: OpenGrants is a tool for grant applicants, not for the funders and foundations managing grant programmes. It does not provide application intake, assessment panels, agreement management, or monitoring capabilities for grantmakers.

Platform comparison table

How to choose the right platform

What is your team's technical capacity?

Platforms like SmartSimple, Fluxx, and Salesforce are powerful, but they require either dedicated internal administrators or ongoing support from implementation partners. If your team is small and you need to be up and running in weeks rather than months, start with Submittable, Foundant GLM, or a purpose-built UK option.

How complex are your grant programmes?

If you run a single annual grant round with straightforward eligibility, most platforms will over-serve you. If you manage multi-year grants, staged payments, complex monitoring requirements, and dozens of active grants simultaneously, the depth of Fluxx or SmartSimple starts to justify their overhead.

Do you need UK-specific compliance features?

Most platforms on this list are designed primarily for US grantmakers. UK funders need tools that handle Charity Commission verification, OFSI sanctions screening, Companies House checks, and UK GDPR data processing requirements. These are not standard features in most US-origin platforms. Tools like Plinth are built specifically for this context — Charity Commission, Companies House, and OFSI checks are part of the core due diligence workflow rather than a third-party add-on.

Is AI a genuine requirement or a nice-to-have?

Most platforms have added "AI features" to their marketing in the past two years. In practice, most offer basic automation (flagging incomplete forms, generating summary statistics) rather than genuine AI-assisted assessment or impact reporting. A smaller number of platforms — including Plinth — use AI to assist with assessment scoring, summarise applicant materials for reviewers, generate tailored funder reports, and draft monitoring feedback. If AI is a genuine priority, ask vendors to demonstrate specific workflows in a live environment, not a pre-built demo.

What is your realistic total cost of ownership?

Headline subscription pricing rarely tells the full story. Factor in implementation fees (often 60–100% of year-one subscription), internal staff time for configuration and training, ongoing administration overhead, and the cost of integrations. A platform at $2,000/month with a $30,000 implementation is more expensive in year one than a platform at $3,000/month with minimal setup requirements.

Where Plinth fits in this market

Plinth is a grant management platform built specifically for UK funders — foundations, local authorities, and corporate philanthropies. Its AI capabilities are integrated throughout the grant lifecycle rather than bolted on. Reviewers receive AI-generated assessment summaries and drafted feedback on each application. Due diligence runs automatically against Charity Commission, Companies House, and OFSI data. Monitoring reports are read by AI to extract outcome data, tag locations, and surface evidence for impact reporting. AI generates tailored funder impact reports from the same underlying data.

For funders managing grants in the UK context, where built-in compliance and AI-assisted assessment matter and where the main enterprise platforms require significant adaptation to fit, Plinth is designed to be the platform that works out of the box. It also offers a free tier, which is unusual in this market.

Frequently asked questions

Which grant management system is best for a small UK foundation?

For most small UK foundations, the best option is a platform that deploys quickly, requires minimal technical administration, and includes UK-specific compliance checks as standard. Foundant GLM is the most widely recommended mid-market option globally. Plinth is specifically designed for the UK context and includes Charity Commission and OFSI checks built in.

Is Fluxx better than Submittable?

They serve different needs. Fluxx offers deeper grant lifecycle management and more sophisticated analytics, but requires significant implementation investment. Submittable is faster to deploy and has a better out-of-the-box applicant experience. For smaller programmes or organisations new to dedicated grant software, Submittable is often the better starting point.

Did Foundant and SmartSimple merge?

Foundant Technologies and SmartSimple announced a strategic alignment and came under shared ownership in 2023. Both platforms continue to operate independently, with Foundant GLM positioned for small to mid-sized foundations and SmartSimple serving larger, more complex requirements.

What is SmartyGrants used for?

SmartyGrants is a grant management platform primarily used by Australian and New Zealand grantmakers, including government agencies, councils, and foundations. It handles online applications, panel assessment, grant agreements, and acquittal (final reporting). It is not widely used in the UK.

Can I use Salesforce for grant management without buying additional modules?

Not effectively. While Salesforce's CRM can be configured to track grants, the dedicated Grants Management module in Nonprofit Cloud requires additional licences and implementation. For organisations not already using Salesforce, the total cost and complexity is rarely justified compared to a purpose-built grant management platform.

What is the difference between a grant management system and a grant discovery tool?

Grant management systems (Fluxx, Submittable, Foundant, Plinth) are used by grantmakers to manage the process of receiving applications, assessing them, awarding funds, and monitoring impact. Grant discovery tools (OpenGrants, Instrumentl) are used by grant seekers to find suitable grant opportunities. Some organisations need both; they are rarely the same product.

Which platforms are best for corporate CSR grant programmes?

Benevity, Bonterra, and Submittable are the most widely used in the corporate CSR space. Benevity combines employee giving with grants; Bonterra suits high-volume, automated grant programmes; Submittable is the fastest to deploy for a new programme.

How long does it typically take to implement a grant management system?

Deployment time varies enormously. Submittable can be live in weeks. Foundant GLM typically takes one to three months. Fluxx, SmartSimple, and AkoyaGO implementations typically run three to six months or longer for complex configurations. Factor implementation time into procurement timelines, especially if you have a live grant round approaching.

Recommended next pages

• Full-Cycle Grant Management: What Good Looks Like — The end-to-end process from design to learning
• How to Automate Due Diligence in Grantmaking — Compliance checks without the manual overhead
• AI for Funders: The Future of Grantmaking — How AI is changing assessment, monitoring, and reporting
• Grant Management Best Practices for Foundations — Process standards that apply regardless of which platform you choose
• End-to-End Grant Software: Key Features to Look For — A feature checklist for evaluating any platform

Last updated: February 2026