Blackbaud FIMS Formerly MicroEdge vs CyberGrants

• Simple layout
• Duplication reports
• Lots of fields for organization-specific information

Read full review

• Custom grant applications - it was easy for us to create applications that asked exactly the right questions. Features like downloadable budget templates were perfect for us, too.
• Easy review process - we're able to see the status of any grant's review process in just a few clicks.

Read full review

• While GIFTS Classic is the most barren interfaces of all MicroEdge products, there are some simple capabilities I wish GIFTS could still perform such as better email integration from outlook to a GIFTS request, more efficient requirement reminders, and a wider use of Microsoft Office and other external product integration (GuideStar).
• It's disappointing that you have to purchase an additional "Customizer Module" or "Budget Module" in order to access basic functions of a GMS. This seems like a basic system function that MicroEdge takes advantage of, unfortunately.
• The online application module (IGAM) is still quite antiquated and you have to be knowledgeable of basic HTML in order to really customize your organization's online application. More flexibility and design functions would be greatly appreciated with the online application function, especially since this is a public document and represents your organization.

Read full review

• Help guides on the admin page aren't always the most helpful for the specific questions I've had.
• Reporting is almost TOO comprehensive - it can be a little overwhelming at first!

Read full review

• Reporting was difficult on GIFTS - often we had to place data into Excel by hand since we could not create simple customized reports. This increased time spent on tasks GIFTS was supposed to streamline.
• GIFTS did not alert us to duplicated organization records, so often it was difficult to reflect an organization's full grant history to our Board of Directors, leading to employees spending time searching through paper records to make sure all information was properly reported.
• GIFTS created duplicate contact records, meaning it was difficult to find out which contact was related to which organization and cluttered our data. This caused decreased processing and response time to "new" contacts who turned out to be previous contacts or contacts whose information was tied to previous organizations. Even when contact information was updated for a new organization, sometimes the program would revert to the first organization contact information, several times leading to checks cashed to incorrect organizations---the very worst consequence of using GIFTS to our organization. Thankfully, the money was recovered upon the few times that error occurred, but it led to me and other employees reading through out 800+ checks before issue to make sure the correct organization was in fact being rewarded.

Read full review

• The time saved on administrative work is a huge win. We used a simple web form for our applications, and spent a lot of time and energy manually entering details into our old system.

Read full review