Sep 8, 2025
Grant writing is one of the most competitive and resource-intensive processes organizations face. With AI tools flooding the market, many promise to reduce workloads and increase success rates. But do they actually deliver?
At Cogrant, we tested 21 of the most popular AI tools used (or marketed) for grant writing. We examined each against real-world tasks: grant discovery, proposal drafting, research, editing, compliance, and submission. Our mission was to identify which tools save time, which fall short, and ultimately, which one is the best in the world.
Below you’ll find our full results (kept intact), plus expanded context: how we tested, what “good” looks like for grant writing, practical workflows, prompt recipes, risk and compliance checklists, and a buyer’s guide for teams deciding what to adopt next.
Table of Contents
How We Tested (and Why It Matters)
The Grant-Writing Capability Model (8 Dimensions)
Findings: 21 Tools, Strengths & Weaknesses (data preserved)
Why General-Purpose AI Falls Short for Grants
Practical Workflows: From Discovery to Submission
Prompt Recipes You Can Copy Today
Compliance & Risk: What Reviewers Actually Look For
Implementation Roadmap (30/60/90 Days)
FAQ: Cost, Accuracy, Data Security
Why Cogrant Wins + Next Steps
1) How We Tested (and Why It Matters)
Real proposals, real constraints. Instead of synthetic prompts, we used live or recently awarded calls and realistic organizational profiles (nonprofits, universities, SMEs, municipalities) to see how tools behave when the stakes are high.
Representative tasks across the grant lifecycle:
Discovery: finding relevant opportunities that match eligibility, geography, and thematic focus.
Qualification: scoring fit, extracting requirements, and building a go/no-go rationale.
Drafting: problem statements, theory of change, methodology, work plan, timeline, budget narrative.
Evidence & citations: finding policy references, authoritative statistics, and prior results.
Compliance: word counts, sections, formatting, attachments, eligibility, and required forms.
Editing & collaboration: version control, reviewer workflows, and style consistency.
Submission readiness: completeness checks, cover letters, bios, and appendices.
How we evaluated:
We scored each tool qualitatively across eight dimensions (see next section), captured time saved or lost, noted hallucinations, and recorded where human intervention remained essential.
2) The Grant-Writing Capability Model (8 Dimensions)
Use this as your mental checklist when evaluating any AI tool for grants:
Opportunity Alignment – Can it surface relevant calls and extract eligibility, geography, and thematic fit?
Drafting Quality – Structure, clarity, cohesion, and specificity to funder language.
Evidence & Citations – Ability to find, cite, and summarize credible sources.
Compliance & Controls – Word limits, section mapping, forms, attachments, and formatting.
Collaboration – Role-based workflows, comments, tasks, and version history.
Security & Governance – GDPR alignment, data residency, model privacy guarantees.
Integrations – Docs/Sheets, project tools, reference managers, and submission portals.
Scalability – Handles multiple proposals, complex consortia, and multi-country contexts.
Most general tools score well on #2 (surface-level drafting) but underperform on #1, #3, and #4—precisely where grants are won or lost.
3) Findings: 21 Tools, Strengths & Weaknesses
(This section preserves your original data and structure. We’ve added formatting only for readability.)
General AI Assistants
ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Overview
ChatGPT is the most widely known AI assistant, used globally for content creation, Q&A, and drafting. Many grant seekers try it because of its accessibility and low cost.
Strengths
It generates text quickly, can adapt tone, and works well for brainstorming or rewriting. With strong prompts, it can produce usable outlines and initial drafts.
Weaknesses
ChatGPT has no awareness of funder requirements. It often produces generic, superficial content and is prone to “hallucinations” (fabricating facts or references). It lacks compliance support, collaboration tools, and expert oversight. For grants, this makes it risky and unreliable.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Plus at $20/month
Claude AI (Anthropic)
Overview
Claude is designed for longer, more coherent writing than ChatGPT, with a focus on ethics and safety. It’s popular with those drafting technical content.
Strengths
Strong at producing structured, logical writing. Handles complex reasoning, making it useful for methodology or evaluation sections of proposals.
Weaknesses
Still general-purpose. No templates for grants, no integration with funder guidelines, and no compliance mechanisms. Outputs, while polished, often lack funder-specific depth.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Pro at $20/month, higher team/enterprise plans available
Gemini (Google DeepMind)
Overview
Gemini (formerly Bard) is Google’s multimodal AI that integrates with Workspace tools. It can handle text, data, and visuals.
Strengths
Useful for data visualization and embedding charts into proposals. Seamless with Docs and Sheets, good for collaborative drafting environments.
Weaknesses
Not built for grants. Outputs are generic, and it has no funder-specific alignment. While strong on research summaries, it provides no structured grant-writing workflows.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Gemini Advanced at $19.99/month (Google One AI Premium)
Perplexity AI
Overview
Perplexity is a research-focused AI that emphasizes cited, verifiable answers. It positions itself as a replacement for traditional search.
Strengths
Excellent for gathering statistics, policy references, and contextual information. Its citation feature is valuable for evidence-based sections of proposals.
Weaknesses
It does not draft proposals, manage workflows, or structure content. Perplexity is a powerful researcher but must be paired with other tools.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Pro at $20/month with unlimited “Deep Research”
Writing & Editing Assistants
Grammarly
Overview
Grammarly is the most widely used grammar and style checker, now enhanced with AI-powered writing support.
Strengths
Superb for eliminating grammar errors, improving clarity, and maintaining tone consistency. Its integrations (Word, Google Docs, browsers) make it widely accessible.
Weaknesses
Limited to editing. It does not understand funder requirements, cannot generate structured proposals, and has no collaboration or compliance features.
💰 Pricing: Free; Premium from $12/month, Business plans available
GrammarlyGO
Overview
GrammarlyGO extends Grammarly into AI drafting, suggesting rewrites and summaries.
Strengths
Helps reframe content and adapt tone. Can accelerate polishing work.
Weaknesses
Still lacks grant-specific awareness. Produces generic drafts and offers no call-matching or compliance support.
💰 Pricing: Included in Grammarly Premium & Business plans
Wordtune
Overview
Wordtune is an AI tool focused on rewriting text for clarity and impact.
Strengths
Useful for improving readability, adjusting tone, or simplifying jargon-heavy content.
Weaknesses
Provides only sentence-level edits. No research, drafting, or compliance functionality.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Premium starts at $10/month
QuillBot
Overview
QuillBot is best known for paraphrasing and summarization.
Strengths
Effective for quickly rephrasing passages and generating summaries.
Weaknesses
Limited in scope. No awareness of grant writing structures or compliance. Cannot replace serious drafting tools.
💰 Pricing: Free with limited features; Premium from $8.33/month
Marketing & Content Generators
Jasper AI
Overview
Jasper is a marketing-focused AI designed for brand-consistent content creation.
Strengths
Strong on persuasive copywriting, tone management, and team collaboration.
Weaknesses
Grants require factual, structured, and compliance-focused text, not persuasive marketing fluff. Jasper’s outputs often misalign with funder expectations.
💰 Pricing: Creator plan $39/month, Pro $59/month
Copy.ai
Overview
Copy.ai automates short- and long-form content generation, primarily for sales and marketing.
Strengths
Quick to generate variations of text, summaries, or outreach messages.
Weaknesses
Not suitable for formal proposals. Produces shallow content with little depth or technical rigor.
💰 Pricing: Pro at $49/month, enterprise pricing available
🔗 copy.ai
Writesonic
Overview
Writesonic produces SEO-friendly blogs, ads, and marketing text.
Strengths
Good for online visibility and repurposing content.
Weaknesses
Content is too general and repetitive for funding applications. Lacks structure and compliance knowledge.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Pro from $19/month
Rytr
Overview
Rytr is an affordable AI writer for small businesses.
Strengths
Budget-friendly and multilingual, making it accessible for diverse teams.
Weaknesses
Outputs are shallow and generic. No templates, compliance, or collaborative workflows for grants.
💰 Pricing: Free (10k chars/month); Unlimited plan $9/month
🔗 rytr.me
Sudowrite
Overview
Sudowrite is marketed for creative writing and storytelling.
Strengths
Good for generating emotional narratives and impact stories.
Weaknesses
Too creative and informal for grants. Lacks technical, evidence-based rigor.
💰 Pricing: Plans start at $19/month
Anyword
Overview
Anyword is a marketing copy generator with predictive performance scoring.
Strengths
Useful for donor communication and persuasive messaging.
Weaknesses
Misaligned with the grant writing process. Produces sales-style text unsuitable for formal, technical applications.
💰 Pricing: Starter plan $39/month, higher tiers available
Knowledge Workspaces & Productivity Tools
Notion AI
Overview
Notion is a collaboration workspace that integrates AI into notes and documents.
Strengths
Great for organizing project information and enabling team collaboration.
Weaknesses
Not designed for grants. Needs heavy customization and lacks compliance checks or structured templates.
💰 Pricing: AI add-on at $10/user/month
Scite Assistant
Overview
Scite specializes in finding academic citations and integrating research evidence.
Strengths
Excellent for adding credible references to proposals.
Weaknesses
Research-only tool. Cannot generate or structure full proposals.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Pro from $12/month
🔗 scite.ai
Grant-Specific Platforms
Instrumentl
Overview
Instrumentl is a U.S.-focused grant discovery and management platform.
Strengths
Strong database of funders, deadline tracking, and reporting.
Weaknesses
U.S.-centric. AI writing features are minimal, and it lacks EU/global compliance support.
💰 Pricing: Basic $179/month, Standard $299/month, Pro $499/month
GrantStation
Overview
GrantStation offers a large funding database and strategy resources.
Strengths
Affordable research access. Helpful for discovering funders.
Weaknesses
Offers no AI-driven drafting or compliance support. Limited to opportunity research.
💰 Pricing: Membership from $199/year, up to $699/year
GrantHub
Overview
GrantHub is a management tool for tracking proposals and deadlines.
Strengths
Useful for task management and pre-award workflows.
Weaknesses
Provides no drafting, research, or compliance tools. Purely administrative.
💰 Pricing: Plans from $29/month to $89/month
Grantable
Overview
Grantable combines AI with templates for drafting proposals.
Strengths
One of the few platforms tailored for grant writing. Offers collaboration and drafting features.
Weaknesses
Still underdeveloped, with limited databases and compliance oversight. Cannot scale to global funding contexts.
💰 Pricing: Starts at $20/month
Grantboost
Overview
Grantboost is a newer AI-powered platform aimed at nonprofits.
Strengths
Provides templates and basic proposal automation.
Weaknesses
Focused on U.S. users. Lacks global scope, expert oversight, and compliance.
💰 Pricing: Free tier; Pro $19.99/month, Teams $29.99/month
OpenGrants
Overview
OpenGrants is an open database of funding opportunities.
Strengths
Good for identifying funding in certain markets.
Weaknesses
Drafting and compliance features are minimal. U.S.-focused.
💰 Pricing: Varies; contact for details
Grant Advance
Overview
Grant Advance provides a grant database and document generators for charities.
Strengths
Comprehensive research and document tools.
Weaknesses
Very expensive. Limited AI innovation. Primarily U.S. and Canada-focused.
💰 Pricing: From $2,495/year (single user)
4) Why General-Purpose AI Falls Short for Grants
Grant proposals aren’t marketing pages. They are structured arguments backed by evidence, budgets, work plans, and strict compliance. General AI can produce nice sentences but typically fails at:
Funder-specific language. Each call has its own taxonomy, keywords, and evaluation rubric.
Traceable evidence. Reviewers expect real citations, not synthesized facts.
Format discipline. Word/character counts, page limits, templates, and required forms.
Cross-section coherence. The needs statement must align with objectives, methods, team capacity, indicators, and budget narrative.
Without these, proposals sound plausible but don’t score.
5) Practical Workflows: From Discovery to Submission
Here’s a blueprint you can adopt, even if you stick with several tools from the list:
A) Discovery & Qualification
Start with a dedicated grant database (regional + thematic).
Extract eligibility, budget caps, geography, match funding, TRLs (if applicable), deadlines, mandatory partners.
Produce a 1-page Go/No-Go brief with: Fit %, key risks, and required assets (CVs, letters, prior results).
B) Proposal Architecture
Build a section map mirroring the funder’s outline.
For each section: purpose, word limit, required sub-elements, and evidence notes.
Define logical framework / ToC: problem → outcomes → outputs → activities → indicators → assumptions.
C) Drafting & Evidence
Use a general model only for outlines or first-pass narrative.
Pull citations via a researcher (e.g., Perplexity/Scite) and save references in a manager (Zotero, etc.).
Replace generic claims with country- or region-specific statistics and policies.
D) Compliance & Red Team Review
Run word-count and formatting checks.
Cross-check consistency: objectives ↔ indicators; activities ↔ budget lines; roles ↔ CVs.
Conduct a hallucination audit: verify every fact with a source or remove it.
E) Final Assembly & Submission
Convert to funder templates, include annexes (Gantt, risk matrix, ethics, data management).
Conduct a cold read by someone not involved in drafting.
Submit early to avoid portal failures.
6) Prompt Recipes You Can Copy Today
Section Skeleton Builder
“You are a grant proposal architect. Create a section-by-section outline that mirrors the following call’s structure (paste headings here). For each section, list required elements, target word counts, and reviewer expectations in bullet points.”
Evidence Gap Finder
“Scan the following draft (paste text) and list any claims that need citations. For each, suggest the specific data type (e.g., Eurostat unemployment 2023 regional rate), and relevant credible sources.”
Logic Model Consistency Check
“Given objectives A/B/C, indicators X/Y/Z, and activities 1-6, identify any misalignments or missing causal links. Propose revisions so each objective has at least one measurable indicator and related activities.”
Budget Narrative Tightener
“Rewrite this budget narrative (paste) to clearly justify each cost against the methodology and timeline. Reduce fluff and ensure language matches the funder’s cost eligibility guidelines.”
Reviewer Lens Rewrite
“Rewrite this ‘Needs’ paragraph for a reviewer who prioritizes measurable outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Keep it under 180 words, use plain language, and anchor with two verifiable statistics (placeholders allowed).”
7) Compliance & Risk: What Reviewers Actually Look For
Eligibility non-negotiables: legal status, geography, prior track record, match funding, ethical approvals.
Clarity & specificity: numerical targets, baseline data, who-does-what-by-when.
Feasibility: budget realism, team capacity, risk mitigation, and contingency plans.
Evaluation plan: indicators, data collection, sampling, disaggregation, and learning loops.
Sustainability: what happens after the grant; policy uptake or revenue pathways.
Ethics & data protection: GDPR, consent, data minimization, DPIAs if sensitive data is processed.
Formatting discipline: follow templates, font sizes, page limits, file naming, and annexes.
Red Flags to eradicate: inflated claims, missing citations, generic impacts, budget-activity mismatch, last-minute portal uploads, and “one size fits all” prose.
8) Implementation Roadmap (30/60/90 Days)
Days 1–30: Foundation
Select a discovery tool + define your opportunity fit rubric.
Build a Citations Library by theme/country.
Standardize proposal section templates and review checklists.
Days 31–60: Scale
Create a prompt library for outlines, evidence checks, and compliance.
Train staff on hallucination audits and citation verification.
Pilot two proposals end-to-end with your workflow.
Days 61–90: Optimize
Add role-based collaboration, reviewer SLAs, and versioning.
Introduce quality gates: no section moves forward without sources.
Measure win rate uplift, time saved per section, and reviewer comments addressed.
9) FAQ: Cost, Accuracy, Data Security
Q: Can general AI fully write a winning grant?
A: Not reliably. It accelerates drafting but still needs expert oversight, verified evidence, and compliance checks.
Q: Where does AI save the most time?
A: Early structuring, first-pass drafting, evidence triage, and consistency checks across large documents.
Q: How do we protect sensitive data?
A: Use tools that honor GDPR, offer data residency options, and allow no-training modes so your data isn’t used to train public models.
Q: What about global (non-U.S.) funding?
A: Choose platforms with EU + international coverage, aligned to EU AI and data protection standards.
10) Why Cogrant Wins
Every tool above contributes something—research, drafting, editing, or management. But each has critical weaknesses when applied to serious, competitive grants. Some are too generic, some too marketing-oriented, and many are regionally limited. None offer an integrated solution.
Cogrant (cogrant.eu) is the only platform that unites all the necessary elements:
Grant discovery (EU + global)
AI-assisted drafting aligned with funder expectations
Built-in collaboration workflows
GDPR and EU AI Act compliance
Professional expert review to ensure quality and credibility
This combination makes Cogrant the best AI grant writing tool in the world.
Cogrant: Smarter, faster, and more successful grant writing — worldwide.
