Comparison
Everyone manages grants. One platform proves them.
Established platforms are strong at what they were built for — intake, workflow, review. They manage the stages; GrantOS connects them. The gap is what comes after the forms: information that stays connected as responsibility changes hands, on a record both sides can rely on. That gap is the product.
| Capability | GrantOS | Flexigrant | Submittable | SmartyGrants | Blackbaud GM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application intake & configurable forms | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Assessment workflows with scoring & review | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Application converts into the live grant record — nothing re-keyed | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| One shared record worked by funder AND recipient | ✔ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ |
| Hash-chained, tamper-evident audit trail (verifiable independently) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Machine-readable grant conditions with LIVE compliance status | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Reusable organisation passport, verified against official registers | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Write-once hashed evidence, reusable across requirements | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Grant-design review before publishing (applicant-burden lint) | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Structurally-enforced conflict-of-interest gate | ✔ | ◐ | ◐ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Open, published audit-pack format for independent verification | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Charity keeps read access to its own record if it stops paying | ✔ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
| Payment execution / disbursement rails | ✘ | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ | ✔ |
✔ available · ◐ partial or configuration-dependent · ✘ no published equivalent. Non-GrantOS columns reflect each vendor's publicly documented capability as of July 2026 and may have changed — corrections welcome. The final row is deliberate: GrantOS records payments as facts and never moves money, which keeps your grant record outside payment-regulation scope.