Softwr

Nonprofits · head to head

CiviCRM vs Submittable

CiviCRM logo

CiviCRM

Nonprofits

Open source constituent relationship management for nonprofits, with no per contact or per donation fee

From
Free
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

  • Only CiviCRM has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: CiviCRM nobody maintains it for you, so security patches and major version upgrades are your operational responsibility and organisations that skip them end up stranded on an old release.; 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: CiviCRM covers Contribution and pledge tracking, Submittable covers Configurable application forms.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which CiviCRM and Submittable actually diverge.

Attributes where CiviCRM and Submittable differ
AttributeCiviCRMSubmittable
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsWeb, Linux, Self-hostedWeb

Identical on both: 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 CiviCRM

  • Contribution and pledge tracking
  • Membership management
  • Events and registration
  • Case management
  • CMS integration
  • Extension framework

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.

CiviCRM

  • A membership organisation with a large contact file that refuses to pay a per contact meternot Submittable
  • An advocacy group needing to hold constituent data on infrastructure it controlsnot Submittable
  • A charity already running Drupal or WordPress that wants CRM inside the same stacknot Submittable
  • An organisation with unusual data requirements that no hosted product will build for itnot Submittable

Submittable

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

Where each one falls short

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

CiviCRM

  • Nobody maintains it for you, so security patches and major version upgrades are your operational responsibility and organisations that skip them end up stranded on an old release.
  • The interface and configuration model are dated compared with hosted competitors, and staff turnover is expensive when the next fundraiser has to be trained on it from scratch.
  • Extension quality is inconsistent, so a payment processor or integration that works on one version can break on the next with no vendor obligation to fix it.
  • Total cost of ownership is genuinely low only at scale, and a five person charity often pays more to a partner for setup and support than a hosted product would have charged outright.
  • Implementation partners hold the practical knowledge of your configuration, so switching partners can be as disruptive as switching products despite the software being free.

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

CiviCRM

Free
  • CiviCRMFree
    • No licence fee, no per contact charge and no percentage of donations
    • Costs are hosting, implementation partner time and upgrade work
    • Paid hosting and support available from partners at their own rates

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 CiviCRM if

  • You need contribution and pledge tracking.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, Linux, Self-hosted.
  • You also want membership management.
CiviCRM review

Choose Submittable if

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

Questions people ask

Is CiviCRM or Submittable better?
Neither clearly leads. CiviCRM starts at Free and Submittable at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, CiviCRM or Submittable?
CiviCRM has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for CiviCRM and On request for Submittable.
Does CiviCRM or Submittable run on more platforms?
CiviCRM runs on Web, Linux, Self-hosted. Submittable runs on Web.
Can I use CiviCRM for free?
Yes. CiviCRM has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Submittable starts at On request.
What is CiviCRM best used for?
CiviCRM is most often used for a membership organisation with a large contact file that refuses to pay a per contact meter, an advocacy group needing to hold constituent data on infrastructure it controls, a charity already running drupal or wordpress that wants crm inside the same stack, an organisation with unusual data requirements that no hosted product will build for it. Of those, a membership organisation with a large contact file that refuses to pay a per contact meter and an advocacy group needing to hold constituent data on infrastructure it controls are not what Submittable is typically brought in for.
What can CiviCRM do that Submittable cannot?
CiviCRM covers Contribution and pledge tracking, Membership management, Events and registration, Case management. Submittable covers Configurable application forms, Blind and multi-stage review, Reviewer management, Grant payments.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

CiviCRM: Is CiviCRM really free?

The software is, with no licence, per contact or per donation charge. Hosting, implementation and support are real costs and are where the budget goes.

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.

CiviCRM: Do we need a developer?

You need technical capacity, either in house or a retained partner. Treating it as a hosted product without support is the common failure mode.

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.

CiviCRM: Where does it win against commercial CRMs?

At scale. A large contact file or high donation volume that would cost tens of thousands a year in metered fees costs nothing in licence here.

Submittable: Can reviewers work anonymously?

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

CiviCRM: Can it be hosted for us?

Yes, several partners offer managed CiviCRM hosting, which removes the upgrade burden and reintroduces a monthly fee.

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 CiviCRM

More on Submittable

Keep looking

Other head to heads