Solutions / Grant Writing & Review
Write proposals that reviewers actually want to fund.
Grantivo's core strength is review, not generation. It checks your proposal against the funder's requirements and tells you what's missing, what's vague, and what needs work before a reviewer sees it.
Reviewers grade on content. So does Grantivo.
Grant reviewers don't care about perfect prose. They care whether you fully answered the question. Did you address every requirement? Is your budget narrative backed up? Do your outcomes have real numbers?
Grantivo checks for the same things. When the RFP asks for a sustainability plan and your draft doesn't mention one, you see it immediately.
Be more specific
"Significant impact" is vague. Include projected numbers or outcomes the funder can measure.
Missing requirement
The RFP asks for a sustainability plan after year one. This section doesn't address it.
Strengthen this
Your budget narrative doesn't explain how staff costs were calculated. Reviewers will flag this.
Ready to submit
2 items need attention
Know when you're ready. Actually ready.
Every proposal gets a readiness score based on what the funder asked for and what your draft covers. Not a grammar score. Not a style score. A score based on whether you've done what the funder needs to see.
You'll see a clear checklist of what's covered, what still needs work, and what's missing entirely. No guessing the night before a deadline.
Built for how grants are actually scored
Grantivo understands grant structure. It knows the difference between a project narrative and a budget justification, and it reviews each one for what reviewers actually look for.
Funder-specific, not generic
Every suggestion references the funder's actual requirements. Not grammar tips. Not style preferences. The specific things reviewers score you on.
Section-by-section scoring
See how your narrative, budget justification, outcomes, and feasibility stack up. Each section gets its own score so you know exactly where to focus.
A checklist built from the RFP
If the funder asked for an evaluation plan and you haven't written one, it shows up. The checklist comes from their requirements, not a template.
Feedback as you write
You don't need a finished draft. Suggestions appear in real time so you catch gaps early, not the night before the deadline.
Review first. That's what makes the difference.
Yes, Grantivo can help you draft and brainstorm when you need it. But the real value is in the review. It reads what you wrote, compares it to what the funder asked for, and tells you where the gaps are. No fabricated citations. No hallucinated data. No generic filler that funders have learned to spot.
Other tools start with generation and hope for the best. Grantivo starts with what the funder actually requires and holds your proposal accountable to it.
What most teams rely on instead
None of these were built for grant proposals. They catch surface-level issues and miss the things that actually cost you funding.
ChatGPT and AI chatbots
- Generate text that sounds polished but says nothing
- Fabricate citations, data, and studies
- Can't check against a specific RFP or funder
- Funders are learning to spot it
Grammar tools
- Fix commas. Miss that you forgot the sustainability plan.
- No awareness of grant structure or requirements
- Same feedback for a blog post and a federal grant
Peer review
- Takes days or weeks when you need feedback now
- Depends entirely on who's available
- Every reviewer catches different things