Submittable

Our company chose Submittable before I was hired and it is now a legacy system

I used Call for Entry before and think it works very well, in a comparable way, and is much, much less expensive.

Submittable offers a better UX/UI and a more manageable pricing model

I selected Submittable because I had used it in the past as an applicant for a different program, and I found it easy to use from that perspective. I met with other companies and did a comparative analysis and Submittable was the most user friendly and also the most affordable option. I'm happy we ended up choosing them.

The university also uses Qualtrics, but I found it clunky and hard to use.

Many features on the LGL forms do not translate to Submittable and vice versa. We use Submittable more because it allows for better branching and flexibility to customize each form rather than needing multiple for the same data collection or selection process. While we like LGL for many other factors, we choose Submittable first regarding forms.

Submittable's customer service was more helpful than other platforms we considered using.

I can't think of other services I've reviewed in-depth like Submittable. We like Submittable. We're consistently happy with the results and have felt no need to explore alternative options especially with so many of our users being already familiar with the interface. We've tried to streamline our functions in one CRM for the most part but I don't see a need for us to dump Submittable too.

As a user seeking a seamless form creation experience, I can confidently say that Submittable exceeds all expectations with its diverse range of options and efficient backend processes. From the moment I started using it, I was impressed by the abundance of features and the polished, professional appearance of the final forms when published.The form creation process is an absolute breeze with Submittable. The platform provides a wide array of options!

When it comes to collecting applications, no one beats Submittable in terms of features and functionality. With other software we used, there were far too many limitations, including having to manually download data, inability to use logic for fields, and no analytics. The other products we used for application collection could not compare to Submittable.

Submittable vs Google Forms is a no-brainer. Yes, you have to make a profile for Submittable, but it takes only a few minutes. Google Forms doesn't have an intuitive or easy way to sort applications or provide a review process. With Submittable, we can track multiple projects at a time without using spreadsheets at all if we choose. It's intuitive, easy to navigate, and one of the best products out there to seamlessly manage a grant or application process from beginning to end.

Honestly, I haven't used other comparable products to Submittable. That said, the interface is far better than the submission managers for so many other literary magazines. It feels far cleaner and far more professional.

I haven't used any other competing products.

There was no good way for us to keep blog publiscations within our microsot suit so we moved onto Submittable.

Submittable has so many functionalities which helps me when I need to ask applicants very specific questions or branch applicants off into differing categories. It is simple yet thorough.

There is no contest. Google Forms is easy and free, but has severely limited customization options, and 0 review process. I love how I have everything in one platform with Submittable.

The Google suite of services is essentially free, but it is not designed specifically for applicants, reviewers and awardees. However, it is very intuitive and user friendly. We have been able to make both services work for us and meet our particular needs. Google saves money, and Submittable saves time.

We have used Google Drive for tracking applications in the past. This was useful, and free, but not specifically designed for this service. Sometimes we think of switching back to Google Drive, simply to save on costs. However, for now, we are staying with Submittable. This is partly because we have a good deal of data now stored in Submittable that would be challenging to remove.

OpenWater, in my opinion, was a better fit for our company when considering the holistic needs of each team and the dozens of programs we manage. Ultimately, Submittable was selected for various reasons that didn't all play out as expected, and I think the organization would have made a different decision had we known what we know now as far as limitations related to our needs and in the way the system operates.

We ultimately selected Submittable because of its ease-of-use, and how willing they were to accommodate our "special situations" without charging us a la carte for additional functionality. The others were several thousand dollars more annually, with LESS functionality and fewer features included.

Submittable is definitely more agile to adapt to your needs, and it has more parameters to choose from. On the other side, our current size of the grants is limited, so I don't know if Submittable can efficiently scale up.

Blackbaud Grantmaking was more complicated/difficult to use but had more features that enabled project & relationship management. It was also more integrated with our financial management system.

I've also just used a system called Slideroom for a jury process through another grants organization.

We used SlideRoom for ease of development and quick turnaround time. We didn't have much time to launch the program, so we went with something that was familiar to many.

Submittable is quicker, more up-to-date, intuitive, and responsive than Foundant. Switching platforms has been a vast improvement.