Fit scoring that shows its work.
Grantable runs each opportunity through the same 22-question decision matrix a veteran grants director would — an eligibility gate, then funder priorities, credibility, and effort-versus-timing — and hands you a scored brief with the reasoning, grounded in your own past applications.
"You found 30 potential funders but have no idea which ones are actually worth pursuing. Evaluating one properly takes an afternoon — so it usually comes down to gut feel."
1. the pile, by hand
fit check — criterion 2 of 22
an afternoon per funder, rereading the pile per question — so mostly, it's gut feel
2. Grantable asks all 22
The Hartwell Fund
eligibility: PASSgeography ●●●● · interests ●●●○ · support type ●●●●
your 2023 workforce award, cited as evidence
runway ●●●○ · no match required ●●●●
the same questions a veteran asks — answered from your own applications, not vibes
3. the call, with reasons
prospect brief
Fit — Strong
70–100 band
Recommendation: APPLY
Strong program and geographic alignment; your 2023 award is directly comparable evidence. Runway is adequate if the LOI starts this week.
could also land: Consider or Skip — always with the reasoning shown
The old way vs. the Grantable way.
You know the old workflow. Here's how it changes.
The painstaking manual evaluation
- 1
Assemble the funder blob
990s, guidelines, past grantee lists, news — a pile of context per funder
- 2
Score criterion 1 of 22
Geographic alignment — reread half the pile to answer one question
- 3
Score criterion 2 of 22…
An afternoon per funder, if you're rigorous about it
- 4
Lose consistency
Tuesday's optimism scores a 3 where Friday's fatigue scores a 1
- 5
Skip the rigor
Nobody has 30 afternoons — so it collapses into gut feel
- 6
Gut feel misallocates weeks
Half your applications go to funders who were never going to say yes
The Grantable decision matrix
- 1
The mandatory gate first
Eligibility checked pass/fail with evidence — an ineligible funder ends the analysis before it wastes your day
- 2
Funder's priorities, scored /12
Geographic alignment, areas of interest, target population, type of support
- 3
Credibility & readiness, /15
Your track record and expertise — with evidence pulled from your own past applications
- 4
Effort & timing, /18
Guidelines complexity, deadline runway, match and audit requirements, award-date fit
- 5
A recommendation, not just a number
Apply, Consider, or Skip — with the rationale that leads there, citing the data
- 6
Same rigor, every funder
The 22 questions get asked every time — consistency gut feel can't match
Apply, Consider, or Skip — with reasons.
Fit scores turn a long prospect list into a focused strategy you can defend.