The Best Grant Management Software in the UK (2026)

Choosing the right grant management platform is one of the most consequential decisions a funder can make. The wrong system wastes staff time, creates compliance gaps, and frustrates applicants. The right one does the opposite -- it frees your team to focus on impact rather than administration.

The global grant management software market is projected to reach $3.22 billion in 2026, growing at 11.8% year-on-year, and the UK is among the top five countries driving that growth. More funders are moving away from spreadsheets and legacy systems, and the platforms available today are materially better than they were even twelve months ago -- particularly around AI.

This guide provides an honest, detailed assessment of the seven platforms most commonly evaluated by UK funders in 2026. We explain what each does well, where each falls short, and who each is best suited for.

TL;DR

If you are a UK funder looking for a grant management system today, Plinth is the standout choice. It is the only platform purpose-built for grantmaking with genuine, production-ready AI across the full grant lifecycle -- from automated due diligence and risk scoring to application assessment, AI case notes, impact analysis, and an AI-powered service directory. Its AI agent, Pippin, goes further still, handling impact reporting, programme analysis, and funder-specific research tasks that no other platform can match.

Plinth deploys in weeks, not months, requires no dedicated administrator, and its pricing is accessible to small teams and large trusts alike. For UK funders specifically, Plinth integrates directly with the Charity Commission and Companies House, but its primary advantage is the depth and rigour of its AI capabilities -- capabilities that have continued to expand significantly through 2025 and into 2026.

The other platforms on this list all have merits, but each comes with significant trade-offs: dated interfaces, months-long implementations, heavy administration requirements, or AI features that amount to little more than text summarisation.

What you will learn

• How seven leading grant management platforms compare on AI capabilities, UK regulatory integration, pricing, ease of use, and implementation timelines.
• Which platforms offer genuine AI versus superficial automation or rebranded summarisation.
• What to watch out for in vendor claims about AI, compliance, and ease of deployment.
• How AI has evolved in grant management between 2025 and 2026 -- and which platforms have kept pace.
• A side-by-side comparison table to accelerate your shortlisting.

Who this is for

• Grant managers and programme officers evaluating new systems or considering a switch.
• Heads of grants and operations directors at UK trusts, foundations, and corporate giving teams.
• Finance and compliance leads who need assurance that systems meet UK GDPR, Charity Commission, and Companies House requirements.
• Small teams with limited IT resource who need a platform that works without a dedicated administrator.

How we assessed each platform

We evaluated each platform against five criteria that matter most to UK funders:

1. AI capabilities -- Does the platform offer AI that goes beyond summarisation? Can it perform due diligence, risk scoring, application assessment, impact analysis, or agentic tasks such as report generation and programme research?
2. UK regulatory integration -- Does it connect to the Charity Commission, Companies House, and other UK-specific data sources? Does it support UK GDPR requirements?
3. Pricing -- Is the pricing transparent and accessible, or does it require enterprise-level budgets?
4. Ease of use -- Can a small team configure and operate the system without dedicated technical staff?
5. Implementation timeline -- How long does it take to go from contract to live operation?

1. Plinth -- Recommended

Best for: Funders of any size who want genuine AI, fast deployment and an intuitive interface.

Plinth is the only grant management platform built from the ground up for grantmaking with AI as a core design principle. Where other platforms have retrofitted AI features onto legacy architectures -- or simply bolted on a summarisation API -- Plinth has embedded AI into every stage of the grant lifecycle. It also integrates with relevant regulatory bodies including the Charity Commission and Companies House, making it particularly strong for UK-based programmes.

Since our 2025 guide, Plinth has expanded its AI capabilities significantly, adding AI case notes, an AI-powered service directory, and Agent Pippin -- an AI agent that can perform complex research and reporting tasks autonomously.

What Plinth does well

Genuine AI across the full lifecycle. Plinth's AI is not a chatbot or a text summariser. It performs substantive work that directly reduces the administrative burden on grant teams:

• Automated due diligence -- Plinth pulls data from the Charity Commission, Companies House, and other regulatory sources to verify applicant credentials, flag risks, and generate structured due diligence reports. This is not a search tool; it is an automated investigative process that produces audit-ready outputs.
• Risk scoring -- Each application receives a risk score based on financial health indicators, governance signals, and programme-specific criteria. Reviewers can focus their time on applications that genuinely require human judgement.
• Application assessment -- AI reads and evaluates applications against your assessment framework, highlighting strengths, gaps, and areas for further questioning. It does not replace human decision-making; it prepares the ground so that reviewers can work faster and more consistently.
• AI case notes -- Plinth can track clients, record case notes, and manage support across organisations, with AI drafting customised feedback for each decision -- approved grants receive summary notes for grant agreements, while declined proposals receive thoughtful, specific feedback.
• Impact analysis -- Plinth's AI analyses monitoring reports and grantee updates to surface patterns, flag underperformance, and generate impact summaries for board reporting.
• AI service directory -- A built-in, AI-powered service directory that helps funders and grantees find relevant services, support organisations, and referral pathways -- a feature unique to Plinth in the grant management space.
• Agent Pippin -- Plinth's AI agent can research an organisation in detail, summarise survey results, analyse attendance data, provide insights on programme outcomes, and generate impact reports. Pippin can also scrape funder guidelines and criteria to assess eligibility, acting as an intelligent assistant that handles time-consuming analytical tasks end to end.

Regulatory integration built in. Plinth integrates directly with relevant regulatory bodies including the Charity Commission register and Companies House, so your team does not need to manually look up registration numbers, check trustee details, or verify financial filings. GDPR compliance is built into the data architecture, not bolted on as a settings page.

Deploys in weeks. Most funders are live within two to four weeks. There is no six-month implementation project, no requirement for a systems integrator, and no need for dedicated IT staff. Plinth provides onboarding support, data migration assistance, and configurable templates that work for programmes of different scales.

Accessible pricing. Plinth's pricing is designed for the breadth of the funding sector, from small family foundations to large national trusts. There is no per-user licence model that punishes you for involving reviewers, trustees, or panel members.

Growing track record. Plinth now supports over 1,500 charities and 35 funders, with more than 220,000 people collectively using the platform. That growth reflects a product that delivers on its promises.

Point North Community Foundation in County Durham has used Plinth since 2024 for AI grant management and impact reporting. The foundation has processed 1,476 applications, supported 696 organisations, awarded £5.7 million in grants, and benefitted over 987,000 individuals. Sharon Gollan, Head of Grants, says: "Plinth has been genuinely transformational."

The Steve Morgan Foundation, covering the North West and North Wales, has used Plinth for grant management since 2025. The foundation has donated £300 million since 2001 and awarded over 2,500 grants. Paul O'Neill, Development Director, notes: "We've only been using the system for a few months but it certainly has revolutionised our thinking and ways of working internally."

Considerations

Plinth is a newer entrant than some of the legacy platforms on this list. For funders who require very specific integrations with older finance or CRM systems, it is worth discussing your requirements with the Plinth team during evaluation. That said, Plinth's API and export capabilities cover the most common integration scenarios.

2. Blackbaud Grantmaking

Best for: Organisations already deeply embedded in the Blackbaud ecosystem.

Blackbaud is one of the longest-established names in nonprofit technology. Its grantmaking product has a large installed base, particularly in the United States. However, its age continues to show, and UK funders should evaluate it carefully.

What Blackbaud does well

• Mature product with a long track record in the nonprofit sector.
• Broad ecosystem of related products (fundraising, finance, CRM) for organisations that want a single vendor.
• Available on the UK Government's G-Cloud framework, which simplifies procurement for public-sector funders.

Where it falls short

Dated user experience. Blackbaud Grantmaking scores 3.3 out of 5 on Capterra and 6.5 out of 10 for Ease of Use on G2. Users consistently report that the interface is "not cohesive and looks very old," and that tasks which take minutes on other platforms take hours on Blackbaud. The system relies on multiple fragmented portals rather than a unified experience, and its customer support scores reflect this frustration -- 3.8 on Capterra and 6.5 on G2.

AI claims versus reality. Blackbaud has announced AI initiatives across its product suite, but as of early 2026, its AI features for grantmaking specifically remain limited. The AI capabilities that have shipped are largely generic across the Blackbaud platform (such as donor insights) rather than purpose-built for grant assessment, due diligence, or impact analysis.

Security concerns. Blackbaud experienced a significant data breach in 2020 that affected thousands of nonprofit organisations. The company faced regulatory action in multiple jurisdictions. While Blackbaud has since invested in security improvements, this history is relevant to any data protection risk assessment.

Slow implementation and high cost. G-Cloud pricing lists Blackbaud Grantmaking at GBP 2,565.75 per licence per year. Implementation typically takes three to six months, and many funders require consultant support to configure the system. Key functions like reporting and follow-up data gathering happen outside Blackbaud Grantmaking through other products, and direct fund payments require integration with a separate costly product.

Limited regulatory integration. Blackbaud's roots are in the US nonprofit sector. While it operates internationally, its integrations with regulatory bodies such as the Charity Commission and Companies House are not as deep or automated as those offered by purpose-built grantmaking platforms.

3. SmartSimple / Foundant (merged)

Best for: Mid-to-large funders who want configurable workflows and can dedicate staff to system administration.

SmartSimple and Foundant completed their merger in 2024, creating a combined entity under shared leadership. Chris Dahl serves as CEO of both brands, and the combined company is actively targeting the UK market. Of the platforms on this list, SmartSimple/Foundant has the most developed competitor AI feature set -- though it is important to understand what that AI actually does.

What SmartSimple/Foundant does well

• Highly configurable workflow engine that can model complex, multi-stage grant programmes.
• AI features that go beyond basic summarisation: AI-enhanced grant application screening, application summaries, language translation, letter generation, duplicate application checking, and real-time insights into grant data trends.
• Strong presence among larger US and Canadian foundations, with an expanding UK client base.
• Active product development with regular feature releases, now accelerated by the combined R&D resources of both companies.
• Comprehensive compliance features including automated OFAC checks, audit trails, and post-award tracking.

Where it falls short

AI is primarily text-generation focused. SmartSimple/Foundant's +AI features are useful and have improved since the merger, but they remain in the category of text processing and screening -- generating summaries, translating content, drafting letters, screening applications, and identifying duplicates. This is a meaningful step above platforms with no AI at all, but it does not extend to the kind of substantive analytical AI that Plinth offers (risk scoring, automated due diligence against regulatory databases, structured application assessment against frameworks, or agentic AI capabilities like Pippin).

Requires dedicated staff to manage. SmartSimple's power comes from its configurability, but that configurability is a double-edged sword. Most organisations using SmartSimple need at least one dedicated system administrator who understands the platform's configuration language. For small teams, this is a significant overhead.

Pricing. SmartSimple/Foundant pricing starts from approximately $500 per month but can scale significantly depending on the number of users, modules, and configuration complexity. As the merged entity consolidates product lines, pricing structures may continue to evolve.

UK presence is growing but not yet mature. The combined company is actively expanding in the UK, but its regulatory integrations, support infrastructure, and understanding of UK-specific requirements are still developing compared to platforms with deeper UK roots.

4. Fluxx

Best for: Large enterprise funders, primarily in North America, with substantial IT resources.

Fluxx is an enterprise-grade grant management platform that serves some of the largest foundations in the United States. It is a capable system, but its focus and pricing position it firmly in the enterprise segment. Fluxx has announced a new grantee interface for 2026, which may address some long-standing usability concerns.

What Fluxx does well

• Robust workflow engine designed for complex, high-volume grant programmes.
• Good data model that supports detailed reporting and portfolio analysis.
• Enterprise-grade security and compliance features.
• AI capabilities via integration with AWS Bedrock for application summarisation.
• Grantelligence analytics tool with 7,000+ dynamic visualisations for reporting.

Where it falls short

AI is limited to summarisation. Fluxx's AI feature set, built on AWS Bedrock, provides summarisation of application content. This is useful for reviewers dealing with long applications, but it does not extend to due diligence automation, risk scoring, or structured assessment -- the areas where AI can deliver the most significant time savings for grant teams.

US-focused with limited UK presence. Fluxx's client base, support team, and product development priorities are centred on the North American market. UK funders may find that their specific requirements -- around Charity Commission integration, UK GDPR nuances, or UK-style reporting -- are not priorities on the product roadmap.

Expensive. Fluxx positions itself as an enterprise product with enterprise pricing. For mid-sized UK funders, the cost is likely to be disproportionate to the value delivered.

Poor documentation. Users consistently report that Fluxx's documentation is insufficient, making it difficult for new staff to learn the system or for administrators to configure advanced features without vendor support.

5. Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud for Grantmaking (now Agentforce Nonprofit)

Best for: Organisations that already run Salesforce as their core CRM and have dedicated Salesforce administrators on staff.

Salesforce has rebranded its Nonprofit Cloud as Agentforce Nonprofit, reflecting its broader push into agentic AI. The grantmaking module remains, and Salesforce has introduced new AI agents for the nonprofit sector. However, it is essential to understand that this is still a CRM platform with grantmaking features added -- not a purpose-built grant management system.

What Salesforce does well

• Extremely powerful and flexible platform that can be configured to support almost any workflow.
• Strong ecosystem of third-party apps, consultants, and integrations.
• New Agentforce AI agents for nonprofits, including a Prospect Research Agent (generally available) and upcoming Volunteer Capacity, Donor Support, and communications agents.
• Conversational AI that can prompt applicants to fill in missing information and summarise proposals.
• Large user community and extensive training resources.

Where it falls short

Not purpose-built for grantmaking. Salesforce Agentforce Nonprofit for Grantmaking is a layer on top of a general-purpose CRM. Out of the box, it does not provide the kind of grantmaking-specific workflows, templates, and processes that a purpose-built platform offers. You are paying for a platform and then paying again (in configuration time or consultant fees) to make it work for grants.

Requires a dedicated administrator. Salesforce is famously complex to administer. Most organisations running Salesforce for grantmaking need a dedicated Salesforce administrator, a role that typically costs GBP 60,000 or more per year in the UK market. Without this resource, the system quickly becomes difficult to maintain, update, or adapt.

High licensing costs. The grantmaking-capable tiers of Salesforce Nonprofit Cloud cost $175 to $225 per user per month. For a team of ten, that is $21,000 to $27,000 per year in licensing alone -- before implementation, customisation, or administration costs.

Long implementation timelines. A typical Salesforce grantmaking implementation takes six to twelve months. Complex implementations can take longer. This is a significant commitment of time and budget before the system delivers any value.

Agentforce AI is generic, not grantmaking-specific. Salesforce's new Agentforce AI agents are impressive technology, but they are designed for the broad nonprofit sector -- donor management, volunteer coordination, fundraising -- rather than for the specific needs of grantmaking. The AI does not offer automated due diligence against the Charity Commission register, risk scoring based on charity financial indicators, or structured assessment against grant criteria. Several of the announced agents are still in beta, with general availability expected later in 2026.

6. Good Grants

Best for: Funders who prioritise simplicity and affordability over advanced features.

Good Grants is a New Zealand-based platform that has built a solid reputation for being straightforward and well-designed. It continues to receive strong user reviews -- recent ratings from late 2025 are consistently 5 stars for ease of use and customer service. The platform has introduced some AI tools, described as "responsible and privacy-first AI," though these remain limited in scope.

What Good Grants does well

• Clean, intuitive interface that is genuinely easy to use. Good Grants consistently receives strong user reviews for usability.
• Updated pricing: plans start at $139 per month (Intro) and $589 per month (Premium), with unlimited users, administrators, and applications on all tiers. Enterprise pricing is available on request.
• Honest positioning -- Good Grants does not overstate its AI capabilities or claim to be something it is not.
• Good applicant experience, with well-designed forms and a smooth application process.
• Anonymised reviews, audit trails, and well-defined evaluation criteria for transparency.

Where it falls short

Limited AI features. Good Grants has introduced privacy-first AI tools, but these remain basic compared to what purpose-built AI platforms offer. For funders who are looking for AI-assisted due diligence, risk scoring, agentic research, or structured application assessment, this is not the platform.

Limited UK regulatory integration. As a New Zealand-based platform, Good Grants does not offer the deep integration with UK regulatory bodies (Charity Commission, Companies House) that UK funders increasingly expect. Verification and compliance checks will need to be performed manually or through separate tools.

Not a full lifecycle platform. Good Grants is strongest in the application and review phases. Funders who need comprehensive post-award management, monitoring, impact reporting, and grant closure workflows may find it lacks depth in these areas -- the Intro plan does not include post-award report management at all.

7. Submittable

Best for: Organisations that primarily need a submissions and review platform, particularly in the US.

Submittable is a US-based platform focused on managing submissions of all kinds -- grant applications, scholarship applications, award nominations, and similar processes. It has expanded its AI features since 2025, adding intelligent application routing, automated compliance checking, and enhanced impact measurement. However, it remains primarily a submissions tool rather than a full grant lifecycle platform.

What Submittable does well

• Well-designed submission and review workflow that handles high volumes effectively.
• Strong form builder with good customisation options.
• Expanded AI features including smart application categorisation, duplicate detection, automated eligibility screening, and natural language processing for reviewer comments.
• Broad applicability beyond grants (scholarships, awards, corporate giving programmes).
• Active product development with regular updates, including enhanced dashboard capabilities for tracking outcomes.

Where it falls short

AI features are improving but remain shallow. Submittable has added useful AI utilities -- smart categorisation, eligibility screening, duplicate detection -- but these do not constitute the kind of AI-assisted due diligence, risk analysis, or structured assessment against grant criteria that modern grant management demands. The AI augments administrative tasks rather than performing substantive analytical work.

Not a full grant lifecycle platform. Submittable excels at the front end of the process (receiving and reviewing applications) but is not designed to manage the full grant lifecycle -- post-award monitoring, payment schedules, compliance tracking, impact reporting, and grant closure.

US-focused. Submittable's client base and product development are oriented towards the US market. UK funders will find limited support for UK-specific regulatory requirements.

Pricing can escalate. Pricing typically starts at $5,000 to $8,000 annually for smaller programmes but can reach $20,000 to $40,000 annually for enterprise-level usage. The features most grant teams need (custom workflows, advanced reporting, API access) are available only on higher-priced plans.

Comparison table

Frequently asked questions

Which platform is best for small UK funders with limited budgets?

Plinth offers the strongest combination of capability and accessibility for small teams. Its pricing is designed for the UK funding sector, and it does not require dedicated IT staff. Good Grants is a viable alternative if you are primarily looking for a clean application portal and do not need AI-assisted assessment or UK regulatory integration.

Do we really need AI in our grant management software?

AI is not mandatory, but the efficiency gains are substantial. A typical grant team spends 30-40% of its time on tasks that AI can automate or accelerate: due diligence checks, initial application screening, drafting summaries for panels, writing case notes, and compiling monitoring data for reports. With agentic AI features like Plinth's Pippin now available, the time savings extend even further into research, impact analysis, and funder-specific reporting. The question is not whether you need AI, but whether you can afford not to use it.

How should we evaluate AI claims from vendors?

Ask three specific questions: (1) What does the AI actually do -- can you see it working on a real application? (2) Is the AI purpose-built for grantmaking, or is it a generic summarisation tool? (3) Where does the data go -- is it processed in the UK, and is it used to train models? Be especially careful with terms like "AI-powered" and "intelligent" -- in 2026, many vendors use these terms to describe basic automation or text summarisation. Genuine AI should be demonstrable, specific, and transparent about data handling.

What about data security and UK GDPR?

Any platform you consider should offer UK or EEA data residency, clear data processing agreements, and specific GDPR compliance documentation. Ask vendors directly where data is stored, whether it leaves the UK/EEA for AI processing, and what their breach notification process is. Blackbaud's 2020 breach is a reminder that vendor security track records matter.

How long should implementation take?

For a purpose-built platform like Plinth, expect two to four weeks from contract to live operation. For configurable platforms like SmartSimple or Fluxx, allow two to four months. For Salesforce, plan for six to twelve months. If a vendor quotes a timeline that seems too fast for their platform's complexity, ask what is being left out.

Can we migrate data from our current system?

All of the platforms listed here support data import, though the ease of migration varies. Plinth provides migration assistance as part of onboarding. For more complex platforms, data migration is typically a separate workstream that adds to implementation timelines and cost.

What if we outgrow a simpler platform?

This is a common concern, but it is worth being honest about the reverse risk: many organisations choose an enterprise platform "to grow into" and then spend years struggling with complexity they did not need. Choose a platform that fits your current needs with clear evidence that it can scale. Plinth is designed to serve both small and large programmes -- it already supports over 1,500 charities and 35 funders -- so you are unlikely to outgrow it.

What has changed since 2025?

The biggest shifts in 2026 are: (1) AI features have deepened across the market, though most platforms still offer only summarisation-level AI; (2) Plinth has added AI case notes, an AI service directory, and Agent Pippin for autonomous research and reporting; (3) SmartSimple and Foundant have completed their merger and are consolidating features; (4) Salesforce has rebranded its nonprofit offering as Agentforce Nonprofit with new AI agents, though many remain in beta; (5) Good Grants has updated its pricing and introduced privacy-first AI tools; and (6) Submittable has expanded its AI to include smart categorisation and eligibility screening.

Recommended next pages

• What Is Full-Cycle Grant Management? -- Understand the complete grant lifecycle that your software needs to support.
• AI-Driven vs Traditional Grantmaking -- A deeper look at how AI changes the way funders work.
• Automate Due Diligence -- How automated due diligence works in practice.
• Grant Compliance in the UK: What to Know -- UK-specific compliance requirements your software must address.
• The Rise of AI in UK Grantmaking -- Context on how the UK sector is adopting AI.
• Data Security in AI Grant Systems -- How to evaluate vendor data practices.

Last updated: February 2026 Ready to see the UK's leading AI-powered grant management platform? Book a demo or contact our team.