Blackbaud Grantmaking (formally GIFTS Online) is part of Blackbaud’s extensive portfolio of software, services, data intelligence and expertise that powers social good. Blackbaud Grantmaking delivers grantmaking capabilities configured to meet the user's needs, and to improve efficiency with personalized online grant applications and report forms, personalized user dashboards, and simplified financial processing tools. By providing access to giving data, including standard, advanced, and ad hoc…
N/A
Submittable
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Submittable offers tools to launch, measure, and grow social impact programs, locally and globally. From grants and scholarships to awards and CSR programs, Submittable partners with users to make a difference. The vendor states Submittable has supported over 95,000 social impact programs, receiving nearly 20 million applications, and that teams save an average of 12 hours per week and launch in an average of 14 days.
Most of the ones used / evaluated were 2012 (or older) and most of them do not exist any more. We Started with Gifts ONLINE and continued with Blackbaud when they bought GIFTS.
As I have said it is extremely versatile. However it can also be confusing. There is always room for improvement. Blackbaud provides extensive online training, good response time from the help desk, a method of recommending enhancements as well as interaction with other users …
CyberGrants and Blackbaud are fairly comparable. CyberGrants offers conditional logic but Blackbaud is a company that appears to be more situated for future innovation. Blackbaud in general has better pricing.
At the time that I used GrantedGE, the product was in the development stages and there were a lot of bugs and issues with functionality. The customer service didn't have the bandwidth to quickly respond to issues. BlackBaud's customer service and history in the field are …
Blackbaud Grantmaking had the features I needed at a reasonable cost for an organization our size, given that we don't accept online proposals or reporting yet. I needed the ability to: manually enter proposal data, link to GuideStar, import public charity status info, check …
We also looked at Good Done Great and a couple others. CyberGrants was actually our top choice, but the previous CEO didn't want to sell his product to oil companies or other businesses he disagreed with.
We thought the other systems were much more affordable and some had better features. However, we were locked into a contract with MicroEdge/Blackbaud, so had to stick with them until our contract expires. If the pricing were better we might consider staying when the contract …
Four years ago when we first considered Blackbaud Grantmaking, two software providers presented demonstrations of their products to our foundation. We reviewed Good Done Great and Foundant, but found that Blackbaud Grantmaking had more features and the functionality we were …
When we decided on Submittable: a) Most cost-effective: solution would cost under USD3,000 per year with no setup fee. b) We needed key features of this solution that were available out-of-the-box, e.g., Online Application Form -- including answers to approximately 20-30 …
Price, ease of use and simplicity of process building. In the other products we explored that cost was significantly higher and we found that for what we are looking for, Submittable provided a much better value and was way easier to use for both the staff running the grant …
We have been using submittable since 2016. The product has grown, and we have recommended it to many groups. Cost-wise, the price has become unattainable for some. I have compared prices with other systems whose names I don’t remember, and the pricing seems on par. The platform …
Submittable isn't in the same league as these other platforms. It's trying to get there but it's been a rocky road. Neither customer support nor the account people we've dealt with at Submittable seem particularly knowledgeable about how the product actually works for …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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.
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, …
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 …
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.
As I mentioned, cost is prohibitive for us. Because it is highly customizable, it is very powerful, but if you are looking for an intuitive, easy to use solution right "out of the box" solution because you have few staff and no IT dept. this may not be the best fit (unless they develop some lower cost / less customizable options?). That being said, we have managed to implement successfully with no IT. I completed the implementation, code the application and online reporting forms (using HTML) and use Blueprint to customize what we need, but it has been a big learning curve and an investment of time to manage the back end of the program. I will say that training new general users is pretty straight forward so their ability to search for information they need and quickly is greatly enhanced. The automatic customized reports and reminders are pretty great, and the overall integrity of our processes and data are greatly improved. Sometimes we wonder if it is overly complex and if there is a way e could "hide" more of the aspects that are not relevant to us, or that we are not using, so we can have a cleaner interface.
Submittable is great for grant management, grantmaking, and scholarship awards. It's a very useful tool also when there are multiple reviewers and committees involved in the assessment of the application. The table feature is helpful, but to download the information in a usable report is a pain. Overall a very useful tool for funding.
Custom reporting: in addition to providing many standard reports, Blackbaud Grantmaking makes it very easy to create and save custom reports. Writing effective queries is simple and requires no knowledge of SQL (though you have an option to write SQL queries if you prefer).
Robust template system: Blackbaud Grantmaking's Document Template Manager greatly facilitates our written communications with applicants. Approval/decline letters, check letters, and proposal summaries are just a few of the documents we generate on a daily basis, and unlike some other systems we've used, you don't have to export the data from Blackbaud Grantmaking before using it in a mail merge document. The Document Template Manager integrates with Microsoft Word.
Managing multiple funding sources: We have over a dozen foundation clients who have supported hundreds of organizations over the years. Blackbaud Grantmaking makes it very simple to keep the client data separated, even when multiple clients are contributing to the same organizations.
Blackbaud Grantmaking is a budget-friendly document management system. We have documents associated with organizations (e.g., IRS letters), individual grant requests (applications, budgets, approval letters, etc.), requirements (grant evaluations and reports), and payments (check letters) and it is very easy to save and search for these documents when they are needed. Blackbaud Grantmaking makes is easy to keep everything where it belongs (and move documents when you misfile them).
System enhancement ideas must be submitted to a community portal and other users must take the initiative to vote on their favorite ideas instead of vendor programmers collecting received ideas and doing the work themselves.
Lack of conditional logic in online application
Communication with other Blackbaud products notably Employee Volunteering and Engagement (fka AngelPoints)
It used to be easier to download submission files from the submissions screen; now, you have to run a report and request a download.
Giving access to reviewers could be easier. It would be nice if we could create the email account and password and then give that to the reviewer. Right now, the invites are often junk, spam, or quarantine.
As long as there is continued development in the product allowing us to create efficiencies, streamline operations, deliver on our reporting requirements and the usability for internal and external partners remains strong we would have no reason to look elsewhere from a systems perspective. If costs changed substantially we'd have to look at different options to meet our cost savings objectives.
Submittable is easy to use for our applicants, streamlines the grantmaking process and provides structures for a range of reviewers on our panels. i like that you continue to come up with new tools, although I wish many didn't come with additional costs.
There is room for improvement and the development of the software seem slow. As customers, we hear a lot about what's in development and promises of new features rolling out. However, it feels like those developments take a really long time to show up in they system for my day-to-day use.
Submittable is very user-friendly. As both a application builder and an applicant myself I find the system intuitive and easy. Many pre-populated questions allow a grant administrator to build an application quickly. The start-up time we first joined as a Submittable client was fast, too. Submittable does not take much time for a first-time user to understand.
We have thankfully never experienced an outage nor been affected by a technology issue on Submittable's side that has delayed our grant process. We have instead been able to distribute over $6M in donated dollars to AAPI small business owners because Submittable is trustworthy and available
We've had a quick and efficient submittable experience that has always been easy to use. When we need a report it downloads within seconds, even the larger reports are 30 seconds or less to download. Pages are quick to load and reports complete in a more than reasonable time frame
I think that they are good at answering our questions and solving our problems. We occasionally get reports from applicants about problems the Submittable team has not solved, but I do not know what the applicant has done to get the problem solved.
We have been using this for many years but my memory is that we had a human walk us through how to use basic features. We also used the resource library to learn about specific topics or issues as they came up.
10/10 because we were able to meet virtually and still get all of our questions answered! Online was effective too because we could easily record the sessions and review them later. Since we had to onboard our reviewers virtually, it was actually convenient that this was the same method we learned how to use the entire program virtually too.
I would say, provide Submittable as much detailed information on your planned use of the platform and your desires with the platform as possible, and the implementation will be tailored to accommodate your organization with minimal lag time and issues/problems.
As I have said it is extremely versatile. However it can also be confusing. There is always room for improvement. Blackbaud provides extensive online training, good response time from the help desk, a method of recommending enhancements as well as interaction with other users and enhancements are scored by users to determine the importance of enhancements to users.
When we decided on Submittable: a) Most cost-effective: solution would cost under USD3,000 per year with no setup fee. b) We needed key features of this solution that were available out-of-the-box, e.g., Online Application Form -- including answers to approximately 20-30 questions, completing a financial income/expense summary spreadsheet, and submitting supporting docs in Word, PDF, or other common file formats. Also, applicants would get instant feedback if they do not qualify, so they won't even bother completing their submission. Backend workflow allows up to 8+ committee members/reviewers to review application submissions, submit and share comments/questions, approve/reject, grant amount recommendations, etc. Basic reporting will include lists of applicants and key data by submission year (e.g., contact details, funding requested, key metrics, etc.). Email alerts to reviewers as applications are submitted. Summary of completed application emailed to applicant upon submission so they have a copy for their records—the ability to centrally track any email exchanges with applicants.
We have been easily able to grow. Not only are we able to process different applications, but Submittable makes it easy to add applications onto our plan. Additionally, their eligibility form before the application does a good job of screening applicants so we do not pay for extra applications.
It has given us the ability to make grants faster. Example: one donor wanted applications to 50 grantees in a short period of time. Even with other items of work on my agenda, having to research where at least 30% of these grantees were since this was their first time getting a grant and going back and finding other ways to contact these grantees- old and new- when the people were not longer at the organization, it got done by me alone in less than two days.
Blackbaud Grantmaking allows us to keep track of everything from how many times a grant has been given to an organization as well as the amount donors have given.
Because of Blackbaud Grantmaking I can create a grant and process letters for payments faster than I can get a check for the grantee, thus making it harder on the finance office to keep up with what I am doing.
We were able to launch our first-ever community grants program on time, and received over 300 applications (we were anticipating ~50 in our first year out.)
This has substantially improved our application and tracking capabilities for our employee relief fund grants, and ensured we are following IRS guidelines.
