GrantWise
◆ Independent pre-submission review

Every reason your application could be rejected — while you can still fix it.

Upload your grant application. In 5–8 minutes we return an independent review written against that programme's own evaluation criteria, where every finding names where it is in your text, which rule it breaches, how to fix it and what a strong answer looks like.

Free score preview, then €50–€150 once. No account, no subscription — and if the full report gives you nothing worth acting on, we refund it in full within 14 days.
  • Processed in the EU
  • Deleted after your review is generated
  • Never used to train a model
Start your review

Three short steps · about 60 seconds

ProgrammeDocumentsDelivery

The score preview and your two priority fixes are free. You only pay if you decide the full report is worth it.

You already pay for ChatGPT or Claude. Here is what they cannot do.

This is not an argument about which model is smarter — GrantWise runs on frontier models too. It is about what sits around the model: the funding programme’s own evaluation contract, all of your documents at once, and two decades of grant practice encoded as review rules. A chat subscription gives you a brilliant generalist with no brief. GrantWise gives you the brief.

Swipe the table sideways to see every column →

The difference that decides your scorePaid ChatGPT / Claude / GeminiGrantWise
Who supplies the evaluation rules You do. You must find, paste and maintain the criteria, thresholds, page limits, eligibility triggers and evaluator vocabulary — and the answer changes every time you re-word the prompt. We do, automatically. Choosing your call loads that programme's own review contract: criteria weights, pass thresholds, document requirements, eligibility signals and the language real evaluators use.
Whose expertise is in the output The public internet's average opinion about grant writing. It has never seen a real evaluation report or a caseworker’s reasoning, because those are almost never published. A proprietary set of expert review skills encoding two decades of grant-application writing and assessment by our reviewers — the failure patterns, assessor behaviour and rebuttal logic that are not on the open web and are not in any model's training data.
How it treats your work Agreeable by default. Ask it to score you and it flatters — models are trained to be helpful, not to reject your application. Adversarial by design. Each of the programme’s own assessment areas is attacked in a separate pass, then reconciled. Judgement is conservative and rule-aware: we tell you when you are below the line, in the programme’s own terms.
Whole-dossier consistency One document at a time in practice. Deck, workplan, budget, annexes and the call text rarely get cross-checked, and long context quietly degrades. Contradictions are the product. Application vs. deck vs. workplan vs. budget vs. annexes vs. call text — the €8m in the deck against the €2.5m + €6m in the application, the 2028 launch against Q3 2029.
Can you check its work Usually not. Advice arrives without a location in your text or a rule it violates, so you cannot tell insight from invention. Every finding is traceable: the exact location in your document, the evidence quoted, the rule it breaches, why an assessor penalises it, the correction, and a re-review test that proves you fixed it.
What you walk away with A chat thread. Re-run it tomorrow and you get a different answer, in a different order, with different priorities. A deliverable: a shareable PDF report, decision-critical blockers first, the complete issue register, model-answer patterns, and a re-review that shows what resolved, persisted or got worse.
Your confidential proposal Retained on the provider's servers under your plan's settings; consumer tiers may use conversations to improve models unless you change the defaults. Processed in memory in the EU, then deleted. Never written to storage, never used for training, no account to leak.
What it costs €20–€23 every month, forever — plus the hours you spend engineering the prompt and judging whether to trust the answer. Free score preview. €50–€150 once, only if the full report is worth it. No account, no subscription, no lock-in.

Where a chat subscription is genuinely the better tool: brainstorming the idea, rewriting a clumsy paragraph, translating, summarising a call document, drafting a first pass. Keep using it for that. GrantWise is for the last mile — the point where you must decide whether this application survives contact with an assessor, and you need someone willing to tell you no.

The expertise is the moat

Our review rules come from two decades of professional grant-writing and assessment practice, not from what the internet says about grant writing. That expertise is ours; no subscription gives you access to it.

The method is standardised

Every proposal goes through the same programme-specific workflow, evidence rules and quality controls. Version matching and score-consistency checks reduce avoidable variation, while the report clearly remains an AI-assisted simulation.

The 5–8 minutes are the point

A chat answers in 20 seconds because it does one pass. We run programme routing, a separate audit per assessment area, cross-document reconciliation and conservative judgement. Speed here would mean less work done.

What actually happens to your application

Five quality-control passes a single prompt does not perform.

  1. 1Programme loadedIts criteria, thresholds and document rules
  2. 2Documents reconciledApplication against deck, budget, annexes
  3. 3Criteria attackedOne adversarial pass each, then reconciled
  4. 4Findings evidencedLocation, rule, correction, model answer
  5. 5Report deliveredRanked blockers and a shareable PDF

Which one are you?

Two different problems, two different offers. Pick the one that sounds like your week.

Applying for yourself

You are about to submit, and nobody independent has read it

Companies, startups and research teams. You have spent weeks on this. Everyone who has read it already wants it to succeed, which is exactly why none of them will tell you what an assessor would.

  • What you get: every finding located in your own text, the rule it breaches, the fix, and what a strong answer looks like — ranked, with blockers first.
  • Why it is worth it: the mistakes that sink applications are cheap to fix this week and impossible to fix after submission.
  • What it costs: free score preview. €50 or €150 once, and refunded in full if it gives you nothing worth acting on.
Start free — no card →
Reviewing for clients

You review proposals all year, and deadline weeks break your capacity

Grant consultancies, university grant offices, incubators and accelerators. Your judgement is what clients pay for. The audit underneath it — contradictions, missed criteria, character limits — is mechanical, and it is eating your senior reviewers' hours.

  • What you get: the same standardised review method on every proposal, whoever is holding it, typically in 5–8 minutes. Your logo on the reports. A signed DPA before you upload a client's document.
  • Why it is worth it: five proposals in the last week stops being a resourcing problem. Your reviewers spend their time on the argument, not the checklist.
  • What it costs: volume packages from €1,200, 20–28% below retail. One invoice, no per-applicant checkout.
See package pricing →

Free tools

Our review engine runs on the programmes' own published rules — readiness scales, thresholds, templates, annex conditions. We keep them current because we have to, so we publish them. No signup, no upload, and they work whether or not you ever buy a review.

EU and Norwegian schemes
interactive

TRL / BRL readiness assessment

Answer what you have actually built, how you tested it, what results you got and what evidence you hold — then we derive your technology and business readiness levels rather than asking you to guess them.

Assess my readiness →
interactive

EIC Accelerator annex checker

Five questions — stage, funding form, topic, clinical study — and you get the exact annex list for your case: page caps, formats, which templates you upload blank, and the traps in the official files.

Check my annexes →
interactive

Funding stacking calculator (Norway)

How far Innovasjonskontrakt, SkatteFUNN, Forskningsrådet grants, EU funding, pilot-customer money and an innovasjonslån can legally be combined — and where the one ceiling that governs all of them actually bites.

Stack my funding →

See all free tools →  ·  More are in development for Eurostars, Horizon Europe, SkatteFUNN and Innovasjon Norge — the hub lists what is coming and lets you ask us to prioritise one.

What it costs, against what it protects

A grant consultant charges €3,000–€8,000 to write one of these, and weeks to do it. An independent check before you submit costs €50–€150 — under one hour of that consultant's time, and a fraction of one percent of the funding you are asking for. Applications normally need more than one round.

Readiness preview

Free
  • Your simulated result, in the programme’s own terms
  • Two priority corrections
  • Delivered by email, no account required
Start free →

Full review

€50–€150

Price depends on the programme.

  • Decision-critical blockers ranked first
  • Complete evidence-backed issue register
  • A separate audit per assessment area
  • A concrete fix and model answer for every finding
  • Shareable PDF report
  • Money back if it does not earn its price
Review a proposal →

Consultancies & grant offices

from €1,200

volume packages, 20–28% below retail

  • Volume packages from 10 reviews
  • Your logo on reports, from 30
  • Signed DPA for your clients' documents
  • One invoice, no per-applicant checkout
See package pricing →

Swipe the table sideways to see every column →

Programme Typical effort to produce it Review rounds it normally needs Full report

Who is behind this

You are uploading a confidential draft. You should know whose judgement is encoded in the review, and who answers when something is wrong.

Qazi Sohail Ahmad, founder of GrantWise

Qazi Sohail Ahmad

Founder

Two decades of writing, winning and assessing public innovation funding applications — EU programmes including Horizon and the EIC, and Norwegian schemes including Innovasjon Norge and SkatteFUNN. He has led international R&D projects, worked inside an innovation cluster supporting companies through these applications, and founded and funded companies of his own.

GrantWise exists because the same avoidable mistakes kept appearing in applications that people had spent weeks writing — and because those mistakes are cheap to find before submission and expensive to discover afterwards. The review method encodes that experience so it does not depend on him being available.

[email protected]

What you can hold us to

Three things applicants worry about before uploading a confidential draft, answered plainly.

Your draft cannot leak

Parsed in memory on EU infrastructure, never written to disk or a database, never used to train a model. Only the generated report is held, for up to seven days, so you can decide whether to unlock it.

You see it before you pay — and money back if we are wrong

The score preview and two priority fixes cost nothing. No account, no subscription, no card until you decide the full report is worth it. And if the report you paid for gives you nothing worth acting on, tell us within 14 days and we refund it in full. No form, no argument. We have not yet published a benchmark, so we carry that risk rather than asking you to.

We tell you what we cannot do

This is a simulation against published criteria, not an official assessment and not a prediction. We have not yet published a statistically sufficient benchmark against official evaluation reports, and we say so rather than implying accuracy we have not proven.

Read the methodology and benchmark plan → · Explore the sample reports →

Frequently asked questions

What exactly do I receive?

A two-layer, programme-specific assessment: decision-critical blockers first, then the complete section-by-section register of supported issues. Every finding carries the evidence from your own document, the rule it breaches and a concrete correction, with model-answer patterns and a shareable PDF. The number of findings reflects what the audit actually supports — we do not pad reports to hit a marketing number.

I already pay for ChatGPT or Claude. Why would I pay again?

Because you are not buying a model — you are buying the review method around it. A chat subscription hands you a generalist with no brief: you must supply the criteria, thresholds and evaluator vocabulary yourself, it has no access to how assessors actually reason, it is trained to be agreeable rather than to reject your application, and it rarely cross-checks your deck, workplan, budget and annexes against each other. GrantWise loads the programme's own review contract automatically, applies a proprietary set of expert review skills encoding two decades of grant-application writing and assessment by our reviewers, attacks each assessment area in separate adversarial passes, judges conservatively against the real thresholds, and gives you a traceable, shareable deliverable instead of a chat thread. Keep your subscription for drafting and rewriting — use GrantWise for the go/no-go decision before submission.

Why does it take 5–8 minutes when ChatGPT answers in seconds?

Because a chat does one pass and we do many. Your dossier is extracted, routed to the correct programme contract, audited separately against Excellence, Impact and Implementation, reconciled across every document you uploaded, scored conservatively against the published thresholds and written up with corrections and model answers. Speed here would mean less work done. You can close the tab as soon as you submit — the free score preview arrives by email.

Which files should I upload?

The form changes automatically once you pick your programme, and it only ever asks for documents that programme actually uses — the required application, plus whichever decks, workplans, annexes, budgets or call documents that scheme is assessed on. Anything optional is clearly marked, and you can always submit an application-only review. Video pitches are never uploaded or assessed. If your funding body is not listed yet, tell us which one you need — programme requests decide what we build next, and we will email you when yours is live.

Can I inspect a report before uploading confidential material?

Yes. A complete finding is shown inline above, and the sample reports beneath it are shortened previews of how a full review is structured and written. Actual paid reports are substantially longer and more detailed. The samples use fictional applicants, contain no customer data and are not presented as proof of benchmark accuracy.

How accurate is the scoring?

Results are derived conservatively from the graded findings and the programme's own review contract, and are always expressed the way that programme expresses them — a score where the programme scores, a qualitative verdict where it does not. We never invent a scale a programme does not publish. The result remains a simulation and should be combined with qualified human review for eligibility, legal, financial and scientific claims.

Is this an official evaluation?

No. It is an independent pre-submission simulation built to surface gaps while you can still fix them. It is not an assessment by any funding body — not the European Commission, ERC, EIC, Eureka, Innovasjon Norge or Forskningsrådet — and it does not predict a funding decision.

Can I get a re-review after fixing things?

Yes, and it is the intended way to use this. Fix the top corrections and upload the revised version; comparing the two reports shows which issues resolved, persisted, worsened or appeared in the new draft.

What does it cost, and is there a subscription?

The score preview and two priority fixes are free. The completed report is a one-off €50 or €150 depending on the programme — €50 for shorter applications like EIC Stage 1, Innowwide and Oppstartstilskudd 1, €150 for full dossiers like EIC Stage 2, EIC Transition, ERC Proof of Concept, Horizon Europe, Eurostars, Oppstartstilskudd 2 and SkatteFUNN. The exact price for your programme is shown in the form before you submit anything. There is no account and no subscription. If the report gives you nothing worth acting on, email us within 14 days and we refund it in full. Consultancies, incubators and grant offices reviewing several proposals a year should look at volume packages, which start at €1,200 and run 20–28% below these prices.