Blackbaud FIMS Formerly MicroEdge vs Submittable

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

Read full review

• We can receive documents from applicants in a secure way without having them be downloaded to our computers.
• Submittable emails you directly when someone emails through the platform which is extremely helpful.
• Submittable allows us to have many different forms on file to easily send.

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

• Labels shouldn't be an option for all reviewers, we had a reviewer for our Florida applicants create labels like "1" "2" "3" which confused my reviewers in California.
• Running reports across multiple grant projects is tedious and clumsy. Our grant project had 15 regions but it was the same application, we had to compare applications across regions, but could only have a set amount of winners for each area. It would've been easier to create 1 application and 1 opportunity but have filters for the # of applications for each region instead of creating 15 separate applications.
• Reviewers also found the review forms difficult. There should be an easier way to run a report on their pending reviews in an excel format, or just a better functionality to review. Even with onboarding, our reviewers were confused and didn't use the review function.

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

• This saves us both time and actual expenses from paper applications.
• More people can access the applications and we can customize them each year to meet the needs of our applicants.
• Everyone's application from start to finish is now in one place including the reviewer's notes, site visit reports and final reports. Much more efficient.

Read full review