Softwr

Nonprofits · head to head

Submittable vs Wild Apricot

Submittable logo

Submittable

Nonprofits

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

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Wild Apricot logo

Wild Apricot

Nonprofits

Membership management for small associations and clubs

From
$60/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Wild Apricot the website builder is dated and constrained, and organisations that care about their public site usually end up running a separate site alongside it
  • They diverge on capability: Submittable covers Configurable application forms, Wild Apricot covers Member database.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Submittable and Wild Apricot actually diverge.

Attributes where Submittable and Wild Apricot differ
AttributeSubmittableWild Apricot
Starting priceOn request$60/month
Pricing modelquotePer month by contact count
PlatformsWebWeb, iOS, Android

Identical on both: free tier (No), 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 Submittable

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

Only in Wild Apricot

  • Member database
  • Automated renewals
  • Event registration
  • Website builder
  • Online payments
  • Email and newsletters

What people use each for

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

Submittable

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

Wild Apricot

  • Small associations and clubs replacing a spreadsheet and a separate websitenot Submittable
  • Volunteer-run organisations needing unlimited administrators without per-seat costnot Submittable
  • Professional bodies handling dues renewals and a member directorynot Submittable
  • Groups running paid events for members alongside membership subscriptionsnot Submittable

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Wild Apricot

  • The website builder is dated and constrained, and organisations that care about their public site usually end up running a separate site alongside it
  • Pricing by contact count means lapsed members and non-member contacts push you into a higher tier unless the database is actively pruned
  • Every module is adequate rather than good, so any organisation with a serious need in one area will outgrow that part first
  • Reporting is basic, and detailed membership analysis generally means exporting to a spreadsheet
  • Migration away is painful once the website, database and event history all live inside it

Pricing, plan by plan

Submittable

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

Wild Apricot

$60/month
  • Group$60/month
    • Up to 100 contacts
    • Member database
    • Website
  • Community$150/month
    • Up to 500 contacts
    • All Group features
    • More storage
  • Association$290/month
    • Up to 2,000 contacts
    • All Community features
    • Priority support
  • Enterprise$undefined/month
    • 5,000 contacts and above
    • Dedicated support
    • Custom arrangements

Which should you pick?

Choose Submittable if

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

Choose Wild Apricot if

  • You need member database.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want automated renewals.
Wild Apricot review

Questions people ask

Is Submittable or Wild Apricot better?
Neither clearly leads. Submittable starts at On request and Wild Apricot at $60/month, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Submittable or Wild Apricot?
Submittable starts at On request and Wild Apricot at $60/month.
Does Submittable or Wild Apricot run on more platforms?
Submittable runs on Web. Wild Apricot runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Submittable best used for?
Submittable is most often used for a foundation running an open grant round where a volunteer panel must score hundreds of applications without seeing applicant identities, a corporate giving team collecting employee-nominated grant requests and needing an audit trail for finance, an arts council managing fellowship and residency applications with multi-stage juries, a city agency distributing relief funds and required to show equitable review and decision records. Of those, a foundation running an open grant round where a volunteer panel must score hundreds of applications without seeing applicant identities and a corporate giving team collecting employee-nominated grant requests and needing an audit trail for finance are not what Wild Apricot is typically brought in for.
What can Submittable do that Wild Apricot cannot?
Submittable covers Configurable application forms, Blind and multi-stage review, Reviewer management, Grant payments. Wild Apricot covers Member database, Automated renewals, Event registration, Website builder.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

Wild Apricot: How is Wild Apricot priced?

By contact count, not by staff seat, starting at 60 USD a month for up to 100 contacts. Unlimited administrators is the practical benefit for volunteer-run organisations.

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.

Wild Apricot: Do lapsed members count toward the limit?

Contacts count, which includes records beyond current paying members. Pruning the database matters, because tier boundaries are the main cause of unexpected cost increases.

Submittable: Can reviewers work anonymously?

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

Wild Apricot: Is the website builder any good?

It is functional and dated. Organisations that care about their public web presence commonly run a separate site and use Wild Apricot for the member-only area.

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.

Wild Apricot: Can it handle fundraising?

Basic donation collection, yes. Organisations whose main activity is fundraising rather than membership are better served by a donor management platform.

Wild Apricot: When do organisations outgrow it?

Usually at a few thousand members, or earlier if one area — events, fundraising or the website — becomes central to the organisation rather than incidental.

Share

Related pages

More on Submittable

More on Wild Apricot

Keep looking

Other head to heads