Softwr

Nonprofits · head to head

Fluxx vs Submittable

Fluxx logo

Fluxx

Nonprofits

Configurable grants management for foundations that run complex, multi-stage funding programmes

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Submittable logo

Submittable

Nonprofits

Application, review and grant management for funders running open calls at volume

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Fluxx configuration flexibility means the system does very little until someone configures it, and foundations without a dedicated systems administrator end up paying the vendor or a partner for every change.; Submittable pricing is not published and tier jumps are steep, so an organisation that grows past a submission or form limit can face a renewal quote well above the previous year with limited negotiating room mid-programme.
  • They diverge on capability: Fluxx covers Configurable data model, Submittable covers Configurable application forms.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Fluxx and Submittable actually diverge.

Attributes where Fluxx and Submittable differ
AttributeFluxxSubmittable

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), platforms (Web), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Nonprofits).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Fluxx

  • Configurable data model
  • Card-based interface
  • Multi-programme workflows
  • Board and committee review
  • Payment scheduling
  • Applicant portal

Only in Submittable

  • Configurable application forms
  • Blind and multi-stage review
  • Reviewer management
  • Grant payments
  • Impact reporting
  • Applicant messaging
  • API and integrations

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Fluxx

  • A foundation running six distinct funding programmes that each need their own application form, review panel and payment schedulenot Submittable
  • A regranting intermediary administering funds for multiple donors who each require separate reportingnot Submittable
  • A public agency distributing grant funds with statutory eligibility rules that must be enforced before an application can be submittednot Submittable
  • A funder moving off spreadsheets and email after grant volume made manual board packet preparation unworkablenot Submittable

Submittable

  • A foundation running an open grant round where a volunteer panel must score hundreds of applications without seeing applicant identitiesnot Fluxx
  • A corporate giving team collecting employee-nominated grant requests and needing an audit trail for financenot Fluxx
  • An arts council managing fellowship and residency applications with multi-stage juriesnot Fluxx
  • A city agency distributing relief funds and required to show equitable review and decision recordsnot Fluxx

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Fluxx

  • Configuration flexibility means the system does very little until someone configures it, and foundations without a dedicated systems administrator end up paying the vendor or a partner for every change.
  • Implementation commonly runs four to eight months and is priced separately from the subscription, so first-year cost is far above the annual licence figure.
  • No pricing is published and quotes scale with assets under management, which means two foundations making the same number of grants can be quoted very differently.
  • The card-based interface is unfamiliar to new users and reviewer adoption suffers without training, which matters because trustees use it a few times a year and forget between meetings.
  • Reporting is capable but the report builder is technical, and many foundations end up exporting to a spreadsheet or a BI tool for board-ready output.

Submittable

  • Pricing is not published and tier jumps are steep, so an organisation that grows past a submission or form limit can face a renewal quote well above the previous year with limited negotiating room mid-programme.
  • It is built around the application funnel rather than the funder's relationship with grantees, so long-term relationship management, pledge tracking and multi-year commitments are weaker than in a purpose-built grants CRM.
  • Applicant-facing forms are constrained by the platform's templates, and organisations wanting a fully branded application experience on their own domain will find the customisation shallow.
  • Reporting is serviceable for programme counts but limited for board-level financial reporting, so many finance teams still export to spreadsheets to reconcile awards against the general ledger.
  • Payment disbursement capability varies by tier and region, and organisations funding recipients outside the United States often still pay grants through their bank rather than through the platform.

Pricing, plan by plan

Fluxx

On request
  • Fluxx Grantmaker$undefined/year
    • Configurable grantmaking workflows
    • Applicant portal and reviewer access
    • Priced by assets under management and grant volume
  • Fluxx Grantseeker$undefined/year
    • Free portal for applicants submitting to Fluxx funders
    • Tracks submissions and requirements across funders

Submittable

On request
  • Submittable$undefined/year
    • Application forms and applicant portal
    • Reviewer workflow and scoring rubrics
    • Grant award and reporting modules on higher tiers

Which should you pick?

Choose Fluxx if

  • You need configurable data model.
  • You also want card-based interface.
Fluxx review

Choose Submittable if

  • You need configurable application forms.
  • You also want blind and multi-stage review.
Submittable review

Questions people ask

Is Fluxx or Submittable better?
Neither clearly leads. Fluxx starts at On request and Submittable at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Fluxx or Submittable?
Fluxx starts at On request and Submittable at On request.
Does Fluxx or Submittable run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Fluxx best used for?
Fluxx is most often used for a foundation running six distinct funding programmes that each need their own application form, review panel and payment schedule, a regranting intermediary administering funds for multiple donors who each require separate reporting, a public agency distributing grant funds with statutory eligibility rules that must be enforced before an application can be submitted, a funder moving off spreadsheets and email after grant volume made manual board packet preparation unworkable. Of those, a foundation running six distinct funding programmes that each need their own application form, review panel and payment schedule and a regranting intermediary administering funds for multiple donors who each require separate reporting are not what Submittable is typically brought in for.
What can Fluxx do that Submittable cannot?
Fluxx covers Configurable data model, Card-based interface, Multi-programme workflows, Board and committee review. Submittable covers Configurable application forms, Blind and multi-stage review, Reviewer management, Grant payments.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Fluxx: Is Fluxx Grantseeker really free?

Yes, for applicants. It is the submission portal, and funders pay for Grantmaker.

Submittable: What does Submittable actually cost?

It is not published. Reported entry points are in the low thousands of dollars a year, with price driven by submission volume, number of forms and seats. Get the tier limits written into the contract before signing.

Fluxx: How is Fluxx priced?

By quote, scaling with assets under management and grant volume. Implementation is a separate professional services fee.

Submittable: Is it a grants management system or a submission manager?

Both, depending on tier. The review side is its strength. Award tracking, payments and grantee reporting sit on higher tiers and are less deep than a dedicated grants CRM.

Fluxx: Can we configure Fluxx ourselves?

Yes, that is the point of it. But it requires a trained internal administrator; foundations that do not appoint one become dependent on paid services.

Submittable: Can reviewers work anonymously?

Yes. Blind review, staged rounds and conflict of interest flagging are core features rather than paid extras.

Fluxx: How long does implementation take?

Typically four to eight months for a multi-programme funder, driven mostly by how long the foundation takes to agree its own process.

Submittable: Is there a nonprofit discount?

Nonprofit pricing exists but is applied inside the quote rather than published as a percentage, so compare quotes rather than assuming a standard rate.

Share

Related pages

More on Fluxx

More on Submittable

Keep looking

Other head to heads