Softwr

Nonprofits · head to head

Foundant Technologies vs Submittable

Foundant Technologies logo

Foundant Technologies

Nonprofits

Grant lifecycle management for foundations, with public subscription bands and a two-year term

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: Foundant Technologies the Basic licence tier omits eligibility quizzes and advanced automation and caps file sizes, so foundations with conditional application logic must buy up rather than configure around it.; 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: Foundant Technologies covers Grant Lifecycle Manager, Submittable covers Configurable application forms.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Foundant Technologies and Submittable actually diverge.

Attributes where Foundant Technologies and Submittable differ
AttributeFoundant TechnologiesSubmittable

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 Foundant Technologies

  • Grant Lifecycle Manager
  • CommunitySuite
  • Scholarship Lifecycle Manager
  • Candid integration
  • Evaluator portal
  • Grantee 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.

Foundant Technologies

  • A private foundation making 50 to 500 grants a year that wants a defined process rather than a configuration projectnot Submittable
  • A community foundation needing donor-advised fund accounting and grantmaking from the same vendornot Submittable
  • Running a scholarship programme with volunteer review committees who should not have full staff loginsnot Submittable
  • A foundation that needs charity status verification against Candid data before every payment goes outnot Submittable

Submittable

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

Where each one falls short

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

Foundant Technologies

  • The Basic licence tier omits eligibility quizzes and advanced automation and caps file sizes, so foundations with conditional application logic must buy up rather than configure around it.
  • The standard contract is two years, which removes the option of a one-year trial period and locks you in before you know whether the process fits.
  • The annual subscription excludes implementation, and the setup fee is a meaningful additional first-year cost that quotes do not always foreground.
  • It is deliberately less configurable than enterprise grants systems, so a funder with unusual multi-stage workflows will hit walls that require process change rather than software change.
  • Pricing above the standard bands switches to an assets under management basis, meaning a well-endowed foundation making few grants can be quoted far more than its grant volume would suggest.

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

Foundant Technologies

On request
  • Grant Lifecycle Manager$undefined/year
    • Three licence tiers gating automation and eligibility quizzes
    • Two-year contract standard
    • Reported range of roughly 4,250 to 9,500 USD per year
  • CommunitySuite$undefined/year
    • Fund accounting and donor-advised funds
    • Priced for community foundations by fund count and complexity
  • Scholarship Lifecycle Manager$undefined/year
    • Scholarship application and review workflows
    • Sold alongside or independently of GLM

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 Foundant Technologies if

  • You need grant lifecycle manager.
  • You also want communitysuite.
Foundant Technologies review

Choose Submittable if

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

Questions people ask

Is Foundant Technologies or Submittable better?
Neither clearly leads. Foundant Technologies 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, Foundant Technologies or Submittable?
Foundant Technologies starts at On request and Submittable at On request.
Does Foundant Technologies or Submittable run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Foundant Technologies best used for?
Foundant Technologies is most often used for a private foundation making 50 to 500 grants a year that wants a defined process rather than a configuration project, a community foundation needing donor-advised fund accounting and grantmaking from the same vendor, running a scholarship programme with volunteer review committees who should not have full staff logins, a foundation that needs charity status verification against candid data before every payment goes out. Of those, a private foundation making 50 to 500 grants a year that wants a defined process rather than a configuration project and a community foundation needing donor-advised fund accounting and grantmaking from the same vendor are not what Submittable is typically brought in for.
What can Foundant Technologies do that Submittable cannot?
Foundant Technologies covers Grant Lifecycle Manager, CommunitySuite, Scholarship Lifecycle Manager, Candid integration. Submittable covers Configurable application forms, Blind and multi-stage review, Reviewer management, Grant payments.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Foundant Technologies: What does Grant Lifecycle Manager cost?

Sector guides report roughly 4,250 to 9,500 US dollars a year on a two-year contract, with larger foundations priced on assets under management. Foundant does not publish these figures itself.

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.

Foundant Technologies: Is implementation included?

No. Setup is billed separately from the annual subscription.

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.

Foundant Technologies: Is the Candid integration extra?

It is included in the GLM subscription and free for up to 1,000 charity checks a year.

Submittable: Can reviewers work anonymously?

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

Foundant Technologies: Is there a discount for small funders?

Some sector associations, including Exponent Philanthropy, negotiate a discount off the initial licence for members.

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 Foundant Technologies

More on Submittable

Keep looking

Other head to heads