Grantivo

Overview

Grantivo brings guidelines, proposal drafting, feedback, and readiness tracking into a single workflow. Add a funder’s requirements by file, link, or pasted text, then use the requirements view while working on the proposal. This keeps criteria connected to the draft rather than leaving writers to compare separate documents, a useful structure for organizations handling applications with differing rules.

Each proposal receives a readiness score and checklist based on how its draft covers the funder’s requirements. That can make apparent gaps easier to spot before submission, but it measures coverage, not the overall persuasiveness or quality of an application. Grantivo also offers a funder directory with profiles covering giving history, award sizes, financial position, and whether unsolicited proposals are accepted. Searching it is free and does not require an account.

Key features

Review tied to the draft

Inline suggestions attach to the passages they address, take the particular funder into account, and can be accepted in place. That makes feedback more directly actionable when requirements differ from one application to another. Reviews, assistant chat, and inline suggestions share a credit balance, however, so frequent use of those tools requires attention to remaining credits.

Research and proposal workflow

The funder directory, writing, editing, section templates, and exports do not consume credits. This distinction lets users continue working with core drafting and research tools even when they want to preserve credits for assisted reviews. The platform also includes an opportunity database, AI writing tools, proposal templates, and deadline tracking.

Ownership and support

Users retain ownership of content they upload or create, and Grantivo says it does not sell user data. It says personal data is protected with encryption, secure servers, and access controls. For questions about features or pricing, the company invites email contact and says messages reach a person.

Pricing

Grantivo’s plans use one-time credit purchases rather than recurring paid subscriptions. All four include unlimited proposals and drafts, the full funder directory, requirement tracking, and readiness features; the main difference is the number of credits. The free plan includes 10 credits at no cost. It is a sensible way to try the workflow, though its smaller balance limits how often users can draw on reviews, assistant chat, and inline suggestions.

Starter is the lowest-cost paid option for an individual or small workload needing more assisted actions; Standard provides a larger reserve for regular use. Team’s 400 credits make it the strongest fit of these options for heavier shared work, though no separate seat allowance is stated. Credits do not expire, and purchased credits do not renew automatically, so buyers avoid an automatic recurring charge but must purchase more when their balance runs low. Writing, editing, templates, directory use, and exports remain outside the credit system on every plan.

Platforms

Grantivo is available on the web. The homepage offers Continue with Google, while no other integration details are stated.

Who it's for

Grantivo is best suited to grant writers, nonprofits, and teams that need to keep funder criteria visible while drafting and make proposal coverage more repeatable. Its combination of unlimited drafts, readiness checklists, and a research directory is useful for managing more than one application. It is a less natural fit for users who expect unlimited AI-assisted review: those actions share credits even though much of the writing workflow does not.

Pros and cons

• Pro: Requirements views, line-level suggestions, and readiness checklists connect review to the funder’s criteria, helping writers identify coverage gaps in context.
• Pro: Unlimited proposals and drafts are included even on the free plan, alongside the full funder directory and readiness tracking.
• Pro: Credits never expire and paid purchases do not renew automatically, which suits users whose application work comes in bursts.
• Con: Reviews, assistant chat, and inline suggestions all draw on the same finite balance, so frequent assisted use can require another purchase.
• Con: The readiness score tracks coverage against requirements; it is not a measure of whether a proposal makes a compelling case.

Alternatives

For a broader comparison, see Nonprofit Grant Writing Software.

• Grantable is another freemium web option; choose it if its free allowance of five chat messages a day and file imports up to 10 MB better match your workflow.
• Grantboost offers a free tier with 10 Writer chats and 10 grant views per month, and a Find Grants plan; consider it if those monthly limits fit your needs.
• Grantora has a free Community plan with up to four Grant Project Outputs a year, 5 MB secure storage, one admin user, one writer user, and unlimited read-only auditor users; choose it if those user roles and output limits suit your organization.
• Mavenly offers API and web access, a free Sandbox with 500 requests per month and 2 req/sec, and a paid Starter plan; consider it when API access is a priority.
• GrantAppli has a free tier for three grant projects; it is an alternative if that project cap suits your needs.
• Grantsville offers a free first application with no credit card required; consider it for a single application.
• WinMyGrant has a free plan for three proposals per month and a Pro plan; it may suit writers who want that monthly proposal allowance.
• GrantLoop is an alternative for grant consultants.

Verdict

Choose Grantivo if you want funder requirements, proposal feedback, and readiness checks tied together in a web-based writing workflow, with unlimited drafts and a free way to begin. The main reason to look elsewhere is if your work depends on frequent assisted reviews and you would rather not manage a shared credit balance.