Causeview vs. Foundant Grant Lifecycle Manager

I think Causeview is well suited for those who are looking to track revenue and donor information in the same place. It is good to have your database with all of your contacts integrated with the same system that you use to process things such as donations and event registrations, so it saves time and we don't have to maintain separate systems for our development work and our other revenue-generating strategies. We also use reports to pull up information about donors and use that information for fundraising -- for example, donor history and things like that.

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

• Causeview's support team is mostly helpful and quick to respond.
• Causeview integrates event registrations within Salesforce.

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

• Event registration and donation pages could be better designed - not up to par with sites such as Eventbrite
• I would like to have the option for people to register with more than one e-mail address instead of creating a duplicate record each time someone uses a different e-mail.
• Some of my coworkers find Causeview confusing to use or difficult to find information.

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.

Causeview's support is a lone bright spot. They are often quick to respond. They are generally helpful, although brief in their answers and explanations. I would appreciate more detailed answers to technical problems, but I do appreciate their support's problem solving ability

Incentivized

I did not personally select Causeview for my organization, but I have found it easy to use in comparison with other similar systems. The fact that Causeview can be added to Salesforce, and hop on our existing database, is very important to us and is one of the main reasons we continue to use the service.

Incentivized

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

• Negative: expensive per-license fee with no discount for added users.
• Negative: unreliable servers that host donate pages.

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