Bonterra CyberGrants vs. Foundant Grant Lifecycle Manager

CyberGrants is very adaptable, so it's ideal for any team that has a large number of grants to review, especially teams with multiple grant applications running on different timetables. Their employee engagement features, while not something we've used, are an area we'd love to explore further, because they create an overall snapshot of giving to an organization (tying in-kind support from volunteerism, etc. in with gift matching contributions and grant applications). If you only receive a few grant applications, or a lot of your grant applicants are very hesitant to use computers or online applications, it might not be as worth it for you.

Incentivized

From where I stand, GLM is well-suited for use by small-staffed charitable foundations who make more than thirty (30) grants a year and distribute more than $500,000 in funds to non-profits. The software is able to handle every step in the grant-making process from receipt of a request, to the evaluation and decision regarding the grant, to tracking the pay-out, and to closing the grant when the work or the year is completed.

Incentivized

• 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.

Incentivized

• Foundant provides a streamlined grants management solution for reasonable cost.
• The company listens to its users, collecting ideas and making improvements. Updates to the software are rolled out several times a year. When something cannot be changed right away, the company gives context and forecasts when the change might be possible.
• While the software is easy to use, it also offers more advanced features (such as merge templates) that allow more customization for the advanced user.

Incentivized

• 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!

Incentivized

• Need a smother process for third party responses. Currently individuals recommending more than one student for scholarships have many emails to deal with to find the correct link to upload the correct student's letter.
• Questions that would filter which applications the applicant would apply for.

I have not used other online grantmaking products or evaluated others. I used to use MicroEdge Gifts, but not the online application version. It was a stand alone management system. This is hands-down better, easier to use and a more complete system

• 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.

Incentivized

• Positive customer service--fairly easy to use for applicants.
• Positive--easy to run reports you have already set up, so [it] saves time.
• Negative--limited question types makes it harder to gather the data we want to track.
• Negative--our budget is more complex than can be tracked in Foundant, so we have to use a separate program.
• Negative--we have to track potential grantee conversations in a separate program.
• Negative--getting data ready to display in a dashboard takes a lot of time to manipulate in Excel.

Incentivized