The CRM for the grantmaking side of the ledger, not the fundraising side.
Nonprofit CRMs model money flowing in: donors, pledges, appeals. A foundation runs the opposite flow: grantees, LOIs, due diligence, board approval, payment schedules, impact reporting. Strkr models grantmaking on every paid tier, with Strkr AI reviewing applications.
Foundation operations sit in a different conversation than donor-side nonprofit work. The data model is inverted (grantees are the pipeline, grants are the deliverable). The compliance surface is different (990-PF, 5-percent payout, qualifying distributions, excise tax, self-dealing rules). The relationship work is different (program officers cultivate grantees rather than donors). And most importantly, the available software is thinner. Most private foundations under 500M in assets end up on Fluxx or Foundant GLM, both of which were built in the 2010s and run 30 to 90 thousand dollars annually before customization, or on a spreadsheet that one program officer maintains and nobody else can read. Six operational pains show up on every foundation evaluation.
Fluxx and Foundant pricing
The grantmaking CRM costs more than two program officer hires.
Fluxx Grantmaker and Foundant GLM dominate the mid-market foundation space. Both platforms were architected in the early 2010s, both carry a 30 to 90 thousand dollar annual price tag before customization, and both require 3 to 9 months of implementation. For a 25-million-dollar foundation making 40 grants a year, the software line can approach 100 thousand dollars annually once customization and support are included, which exceeds the fully loaded cost of a second program officer. Strkr is per-seat with grantmaking functionality on every paid tier.
LOI to proposal gap
Letters of inquiry live in email and die in email.
A typical foundation receives 150 to 400 letters of inquiry a year, invites 20 to 40 percent to submit a full proposal, and funds 30 to 60 percent of invited proposals. The LOI-to-proposal workflow is the single highest-volume operational motion a foundation runs. In most foundations under 100 million dollars in assets, this workflow runs on a shared Gmail inbox and a Google Sheet. Strkr models the LOI as a pipeline opportunity with grantee record, program-area tags, stage ladder, assigned program officer, and automated response workflow.
Due diligence packet chaos
The 990, the audit, and the budget never land in one place.
A full-proposal grantee submits a current 990, two years of audited financials, a program budget, a logic model, and a leadership bio packet. These documents arrive in six emails over three weeks from four different grantee contacts. The program officer rebuilds the packet in a shared drive folder for the next board docket. Nothing lives on the grantee record. The next cycle starts the same chore. Strkr collects due diligence through the grantee portal and files each artifact against the grantee record with document type, year, and version tagged.
Board docket build
The quarterly board packet takes two weeks to compile.
A foundation board docket runs 80 to 300 pages per quarterly meeting: program officer memos per grant recommendation, due diligence summaries, financial projections, prior-year grantee outcomes, program-strategy updates, 990-PF projections. The compilation chore eats 60 to 120 hours of program officer and executive director time per cycle. Strkr auto-drafts each memo from the grantee record and compiles the docket as a Projects deliverable so the editing work replaces the compiling work.
Multi-year payment schedules
The three-year grant lives in a tax-advisor spreadsheet.
A three-year general operating grant at 450,000 dollars total, paid 150,000 per year in October, with reporting conditions attached to each payment, is a data model most foundation CRMs handle poorly. The payment schedule usually ends up in a tax-advisor spreadsheet that reconciles against QuickBooks quarterly, and nobody except the CFO can read it. Strkr models the grant as a record with payment schedule, conditions precedent, reporting milestones, and automatic finance-team notifications before each scheduled payment date.
Impact reporting is a one-way street
Grantee reports arrive and disappear into a folder.
Grantees submit interim and final reports with narrative outcomes, financial statements, and sometimes quantitative impact data. Most foundations under 200 million in assets store these reports in a shared drive folder organized by grantee name and year, and the aggregate impact across the portfolio is never computed because the data was never structured. Strkr collects grantee reports through the portal with required fields extracted into structured outcome data that rolls up by program area, geography, and strategic initiative.
How Strkr fits a foundation
The grantmaking primitives private foundations actually need.
Strkr was designed for foundations that outgrew the shared-inbox-and-spreadsheet approach but refuse to write a Fluxx or Foundant check for 60 thousand dollars a year. The feature set below ships on every paid tier, reads the way a program officer thinks, and models the grantmaking lifecycle as a connected motion from LOI through final report.
Grantee record
One record, every interaction, every grant, every report.
Each grantee organization has a record carrying LOI history, prior grants, payment history, due diligence documents, report submissions, program officer notes, site visits, and leadership changes. Lifetime grant total calculates automatically. The program officer walking into a site visit opens the record and sees the full relationship rather than scrolling five folders in a shared drive.
LOI to proposal pipeline
Grantmaking as a stage ladder with program-area routing.
Each LOI enters a pipeline with program-area tags, assigned program officer, stage ladder (received, triaged, invited, declined, in review, recommended, approved, declined by board), and automatic grantee response workflow. Program officers see their active pipeline the way a sales team sees deals, which is the correct mental model because the work is the same shape: cultivate the right grantees, make the strongest investment case, close with the board.
Due diligence intake
Grantee portal collects the packet.
The grantee portal collects the due diligence packet: current 990, two years of audited financials, program budget, logic model, leadership bios, board roster, state registrations. Each document lands on the grantee record with type, year, and version tagged. The program officer stops rebuilding the packet from six emails and the next cycle starts with 70 percent of due diligence already on file.
Strkr AI application review
First-pass proposal summary and alignment flag.
Strkr AI reads submitted proposals and drafts a one-page summary with program alignment score, flagged risk areas (concentration risk, leadership transition, prior reporting issues), and the three questions the program officer should ask on the site visit. The first-pass review that used to take 90 minutes of program officer time collapses to a 20-minute review-and-edit workflow. The AI output includes citation back to the proposal section driving each observation.
Board docket builder
Projects module compiles the quarterly packet.
Each board meeting is a Projects deliverable with a per-grant memo template that pulls from the grantee record, a due diligence summary section, a financial projection, prior-year outcomes, and program strategy updates. Program officers edit the auto-drafted memos rather than build them from scratch. The 60-to-120-hour compilation chore collapses to roughly 15 hours of focused editing per quarterly cycle.
Payment schedule management
Multi-year grants with conditions and finance notifications.
Each grant record carries the full payment schedule: tranche amounts, scheduled payment dates, conditions precedent per tranche (interim report submitted, financial statement filed, specific milestone met), and automatic finance-team notification two weeks before each scheduled payment. The CFO stops managing the payment calendar in a spreadsheet; the finance workflow runs on the record where grantmaking decisions live.
Impact rollups
Structured outcomes across the portfolio.
Grantee reports collect required fields through the portal with outputs, outcomes, and indicator values captured in structured form. The system rolls up by program area, geography, strategic initiative, and grant year. The board sees portfolio-level impact without a program officer reading 40 reports and writing a narrative from memory. The quarterly dashboard runs on numbers rather than vignettes.
990-PF data preparation
Grants-paid-out schedule ready for the return.
The 990-PF Part XV grants-paid-out schedule, Part VII expenditure responsibility reporting, and Part XIV qualifying distributions summary pull from the grants record continuously. The accountant preparing the return receives a reviewed export rather than a reconstruction project. The 5-percent payout test runs live so the foundation knows mid-year whether the grants calendar needs acceleration.
Program officer workload
Capacity visible across the portfolio.
Each program officer carries a portfolio of 20 to 60 active grantees across LOI, proposal review, active grants, and final reporting. Strkr tracks per-officer load across these stages, flags officers whose portfolio has grown past healthy capacity, and surfaces grants aging in intermediate stages. Workload rebalancing before year end runs on data rather than instinct.
The compliance layer foundations live inside
990-PF, excise tax, self-dealing, and expenditure responsibility.
Private foundation compliance is a regulatory shape that nonprofit CRMs built for donor-side organizations do not model well. The 5-percent minimum payout, the 1.39-percent net investment income excise tax, the self-dealing rules under IRC 4941, expenditure responsibility for grants to non-public-charities, and foreign grant equivalency determinations all sit on the grantmaking workflow. Strkr models each of these at the data layer so the compliance officer stops auditing by spreadsheet twice a year.
5-percent payout test
Live tracking against qualifying distributions.
A private non-operating foundation must distribute 5 percent of average net investment assets annually as qualifying distributions. The test runs on grants-paid-out plus qualifying administrative expenses minus returns-of-prior-years amounts. Strkr tracks the payout number live across the fiscal year with the current attainment and the projected year-end position surfaced on the executive dashboard. The CEO knows in October whether to accelerate the grants calendar before December 31.
Excise tax projection
Net investment income and the 1.39-percent line.
The 1.39-percent excise tax on net investment income (previously tiered at 1 or 2 percent, flat since 2019) projects live against the fiscal-year investment performance that lands via the custodian feed. The CFO sees the projected excise liability at each board meeting rather than at year end. Foundations with legacy excise-tax strategies carried over from the pre-2019 tiered regime surface the gap and adjust accordingly.
Self-dealing surveillance
Disqualified-person checks on every grant and vendor.
Self-dealing under IRC 4941 prohibits most transactions between the foundation and disqualified persons (substantial contributors, foundation managers, their family members, their controlled entities). Strkr maintains a disqualified-persons register and runs automatic checks on every grantee organization and vendor engagement. The compliance officer sees any potential self-dealing exposure before the grant is approved rather than during the next audit.
Expenditure responsibility
ER grants with required documentation.
Grants to non-public-charities (501(c)(4) organizations, foreign non-equivalency grantees, fiscal sponsors in certain structures) require expenditure responsibility under IRC 4945. The required documentation (pre-grant inquiry, written agreement, grant reports, 990-PF disclosure) is a repeatable workflow that most foundations run in a Word template and a shared drive. Strkr tracks ER grants with the required documentation generated and the 990-PF Part VII disclosure data ready for the return.
Equivalency determination
Foreign grantees with ED or ER classification.
A grant to a foreign non-US organization requires either an equivalency determination (NGOsource is the common service, costing 500 to 2,500 dollars per grantee) or expenditure responsibility. Strkr tracks the ED status per foreign grantee with renewal date (typically 2 years), underlying NGOsource certification document, and automatic flag for ED expiration before the next grant tranche. The compliance officer stops holding breath on cross-border grants.
Jeopardizing investments
IRC 4944 flagging on program-related investments.
Program-related investments (PRIs) sit in a compliance category: they qualify toward the 5-percent payout, they must have a charitable purpose, and they are exempt from the jeopardizing-investment rules under IRC 4944. Strkr tags PRIs with the required charitable-purpose documentation, interest-rate justification, and compliance-category marker so the 990-PF correctly reports PRIs separately from grants and investments.
The grantmaking lifecycle as a connected motion
What the CRM should do across the funding cycle.
A foundation grant does not end when the check is cut. The real lifecycle runs from LOI through due diligence, board approval, payment schedule, interim reporting, final reporting, impact rollup, renewal decision, and either renewal grant or declination. Twelve to thirty-six months per grant depending on structure. Strkr keeps the full lifecycle on the grantee record so the renewal decision runs on evidence rather than program officer memory.
LOI triage
The 300-LOI year runs on a program-area ladder.
Each incoming LOI gets program-area tagged on submission, routed to the responsible program officer, and triaged within a 10-business-day window. Declines fire the auto-response immediately so grantees are not waiting 90 days to learn their LOI was off-strategy. Invitations trigger the full proposal workflow with the proposal template routed to the grantee contact. The LOI-to-decision cycle time typically compresses from 60 days to 25 days.
Site visit scheduling
Projects module runs the visit workflow.
A site visit for a proposal under consideration carries flight bookings, lodging, agenda, pre-visit briefing document, question list, and post-visit memo. Strkr Projects runs the visit as an engagement with checklist deliverables and the post-visit memo filing to the grantee record. The program officer stops running site visits from an email thread and a notes app.
Board approval workflow
Trustee review and decision tracking.
The board docket circulates to trustees 10 to 14 days before the meeting via the trustee portal. Each trustee reviews the memos, raises questions through the comment thread, and casts preliminary indications. The board meeting runs on a surface rather than a 240-page PDF. Decisions log to each grant record with trustee attendance, vote tallies, and recorded conditions.
Grant agreement
Agreement generated from the approved recommendation.
The grant agreement generates from the approved board recommendation with grantee counterparty, grant amount, payment schedule, conditions precedent, reporting requirements, and ER classification already populated. The agreement routes through DocuSign or PandaDoc via native integration and the executed PDF files to the grant record. The agreement workflow collapses from a week of counsel review to a 48-hour sign cycle for routine grants.
Payment release
Conditions-precedent gating with finance notification.
Each scheduled payment carries a conditions-precedent checklist (interim report submitted, financial statement filed, specific milestone met). The system verifies conditions, notifies the finance team two weeks before the scheduled payment date, and holds the payment release if conditions remain unmet. The CFO stops managing the payment calendar manually and finance mistakes effectively drop to zero.
Interim and final reporting
Grantee portal with structured outcome capture.
Interim and final reports submit through the grantee portal with narrative sections and structured outcome fields (outputs, outcomes, indicator values). Strkr AI drafts a one-page summary of each report for the program officer, flagging deviations from the proposed logic model and specific areas that warrant follow-up. The program officer reviews summaries rather than reading 40 reports from scratch each quarter.
Renewal decision
Prior-grant evidence informs the next ask.
A grantee returning for a renewal grant arrives at the proposal stage with the full prior-grant history on the record: outcomes delivered, payment compliance, reporting timeliness, leadership stability, site visit observations, strategic alignment evolution. The renewal decision runs on evidence rather than program officer memory of a conversation 18 months ago, which is where portfolio-concentration risk actually gets managed.
What foundation leaders compare on
The evaluation shape beyond feature matrices.
Most best-foundation-CRM roundups rank by feature count or by legacy brand recognition. The real evaluation at a 25-to-500-million-dollar foundation sits on different criteria: fit for the grantmaking shape, time to a working implementation, pricing math at a lean team, grantee experience through the portal, compliance posture, and exit cost in year five. Here is the version that actually matters.
Time to first useful day
Weeks from signup to a program officer logging an LOI.
Strkr: typically 4 to 8 weeks with no implementation partner. Fluxx Grantmaker: 4 to 9 months with mandatory implementation and a certified configurator. Foundant GLM: 3 to 6 months with implementation support. SmartSimple: 4 to 8 months. The time cost compounds when the foundation is trying to clean up a backlog before the next grant cycle rather than running the current cycle on the new system from day one.
Three-year total cost
TCO at a 25-million-asset foundation.
Strkr: flat per-seat with grantmaking functionality on every paid tier, typically 8 to 20 thousand dollars annually. Fluxx Grantmaker: 30 to 70 thousand dollars annually before customization. Foundant GLM: 25 to 60 thousand dollars annually. SmartSimple: 30 to 90 thousand dollars annually. Over three years, TCO delta can approach 100 to 200 thousand dollars for a 25-million-asset foundation, which funds a program-officer hire or two renewal grants.
Admin headcount
Who keeps the system running.
Strkr: a program officer or ops lead investing 5 to 15 percent of a week, scaling cleanly through 25 program staff. Fluxx: typically a dedicated configurator role starting around 25 staff. Foundant: operations-lead configurable at smaller scales, administrator at larger. The staffing line often exceeds the licensing line at mid-size foundations, which is the invisible number that never shows up on the original budget request.
Grantee portal experience
What applicants see on their end.
Strkr: modern grantee portal with saved applications, document upload, structured reporting, and mobile-responsive design. Fluxx: configurable portal, often requires custom work for the grantee experience. Foundant: solid grantee portal. The grantee portal is often the first impression a prospective grantee has of the foundation, which matters more than most grantmakers assume.
Compliance posture
What the compliance officer can tell the audit committee.
Role-based access with field-level permissions, audit log on every record change, SSO and MFA on every tier, encrypted storage, self-dealing register, ER documentation, ED tracking, 990-PF export. HIPAA compliant with BAA available for health-focused foundations. SOC 2 Type II in progress through 2026-Q4. GDPR and CCPA compliant. The compliance officer answers audit-committee questions with evidence rather than vendor assurances.
Native integrations
The tools foundations actually use.
Open REST API plus webhook integrations with QuickBooks for the general ledger, DocuSign and PandaDoc for grant agreements, Microsoft 365 and Gmail for mail, the custodian feed for investment data, Candid (formerly GuideStar) for grantee background. Strkr ships these integrations natively rather than through middleware that breaks on the first schema change.
Exit cost
What it costs to leave in year five.
Every grantmaking platform claims clean portability. In practice, lifting automations, custom objects, document archives, and grantee histories out of a legacy platform runs three to six months. Strkr handles the exit differently: CSV and JSON export land cleanly, every automation is stored as structured data, grant history stays on the grantee record. The eventual migration out, if it ever comes, is a focused month rather than a full quarter of ED and CFO time.
Head-to-head
Strkr vs the Fluxx and Foundant stack.
Most foundations under 500 million in assets end up running Fluxx Grantmaker or Foundant GLM, both built in the 2010s with pricing that assumes a certified configurator in the loop. Strkr ships grantmaking functionality on every paid tier with modern primitives and no implementation retainer. Here is the side-by-side.
Feature
Strkr
Fluxx or Foundant GLM
Pricing basis
Flat per seat with grantmaking on every paid tier
25 to 90 thousand dollars annually plus customization
LOI pipeline
Opportunity pipeline with program-area routing
Submission form with status tracking
Due diligence intake
Portal collection with typed and versioned documents
Portal upload with manual filing
Board docket builder
Auto-drafted memos from grantee record
Export to Word, manual compilation
Multi-year payment schedule
Conditions precedent with finance-team notifications
Payment tracking, manual condition verification
Impact reporting
Structured outcomes rolled up by program and geography
Report upload with narrative storage
AI application review
Strkr AI drafts proposal summary with alignment flag
AI features vary by vendor and tier
990-PF data prep
Grants-paid-out schedule ready for the return
Export available, reconciliation needed
Self-dealing surveillance
Disqualified-persons register with auto-check
Manual review or custom configuration
Time to first useful day
4 to 8 weeks with no partner
3 to 9 months with mandatory implementation
Grantee portal experience
Modern mobile-responsive portal on every tier
Portal exists, UX varies by implementation vintage
Admin overhead
5 to 15 percent of a program officer week
Dedicated configurator at 25-plus staff
How teams use Strkr
Playbooks foundations run on Strkr today.
The common thread across foundations consolidating to Strkr is that Fluxx or Foundant pricing had drifted past 50 thousand annually, the implementation was built around a prior staff member, and the grantmaking workflow had calcified around configurations nobody could untangle. Consolidating to Strkr compressed the LOI cycle, cut the board docket build chore, and freed program officer time for actual grantee work. The playbooks below reflect real customer motions.
Family foundation (18M assets)
Replaced a shared inbox with LOI pipeline.
An 18-million-dollar family foundation making 22 grants a year ran the LOI process out of a shared Gmail inbox and a Google Sheet maintained by the executive director. Strkr modeled each LOI as a pipeline opportunity with program-area routing and automatic grantee response. LOI-to-decision cycle time dropped from 72 days to 24 days. Grantee feedback on application experience improved materially, which the ED discovered through unsolicited emails from declined applicants thanking the foundation for the quick response.
Private foundation (120M assets)
Migrated off Fluxx in 11 weeks, cut annual cost by 42K.
A 120-million-dollar private foundation running Fluxx Grantmaker for 6 years migrated to Strkr over 11 weeks. Historical grantmaking data (roughly 1,800 grants, 540 grantee organizations, 4,200 documents) migrated with full fidelity. Annual software line dropped from 68 thousand to 26 thousand across the three-user seat count. The ED redirected the 42 thousand delta toward an additional 100-thousand-dollar grant that would otherwise not have cleared the following cycle.
Corporate foundation (community-giving)
Board docket build cut from 90 hours to 15.
A corporate foundation making 60 grants a year ran a quarterly board docket of 180 pages. The compilation chore ate roughly 90 hours of program officer and executive assistant time per cycle. Strkr Projects auto-drafted the per-grant memos from the grantee record, compiled the due diligence summary, and generated the financial projection. The next cycle compiled in roughly 15 hours of focused editing. The reclaimed program officer time went into site visits for the following cycle.
Health-focused foundation
Impact rollups surfaced portfolio concentration.
A health-focused foundation making 45 grants a year across six program areas activated structured outcome capture on grantee reports. Within two reporting cycles, the dashboard revealed that 68 percent of impact outputs across the portfolio concentrated in two of the six program areas despite grants being distributed roughly evenly. The board responded with a strategic review that redistributed the following year's cycle toward higher-leverage program areas, which was a conversation nobody could have had on vignettes alone.
Family office grantmaking arm
Strkr AI pre-screened LOIs before program officer review.
A family office grantmaking arm receiving 280 LOIs a year activated Strkr AI pre-screening. The AI drafted a one-page summary per LOI with program alignment score and flagged risks. The program officer reviewed roughly 20 LOIs per week in a 90-minute window instead of a half-day read-through. Decline response time dropped from 45 days to 8 days, which lifted the foundation's reputation among grantee peer networks and surfaced a few invited proposals that would otherwise have been missed in the backlog.
The grantmaking surface, without the implementation partner retainer.
Start a 14-day trial with the foundation configuration enabled: LOI pipeline, due diligence portal, board docket builder, multi-year payment schedules, grantee reporting, impact rollups, 990-PF data prep, and compliance surveillance. Migrate from Fluxx Grantmaker, Foundant GLM, or SmartSimple over a focused quarter.
How does Strkr differ from a nonprofit CRM like Bloomerang or DonorPerfect?
Nonprofit CRMs are built for the direction money flows in: donors, pledges, appeals, major-gift cultivation, event sponsorship, planned giving. A foundation runs the opposite flow: grantee prospects, LOIs, due diligence, board approval, payment schedules, grantee reports, impact rollups. The data model is inverted. Strkr foundation configuration models grants-out as the primary motion with grantees as the pipeline, which is what Fluxx Grantmaker and Foundant GLM also do. For foundations that also run some fundraising (community foundations, hybrid structures), Strkr handles both motions on one platform because the underlying CRM supports both directions. For a pure grantmaking foundation, the configuration focuses entirely on the grants-out workflow.
Does Strkr handle 990-PF reporting data preparation?
Yes. The 990-PF Part XV grants-paid-out schedule, Part VII expenditure responsibility reporting, Part XIV qualifying distributions summary, and the schedule of grants and contributions pull from the grants record continuously. The accountant preparing the return receives a reviewed export rather than a reconstruction project. The 5-percent minimum payout test runs live across the fiscal year so the foundation knows mid-year whether the grants calendar needs acceleration before December 31. Program-related investments are tracked separately so the return correctly distinguishes PRIs from grants and investments. For foundations with foreign grants, the ED and ER tracking is already in the record for Part VII disclosure.
How does Strkr handle expenditure responsibility and equivalency determination?
Expenditure responsibility grants (grants to non-public-charities under IRC 4945) are tagged on the grant record with the required documentation workflow: pre-grant inquiry, written agreement, interim and final grant reports, and 990-PF Part VII disclosure data. Equivalency determination for foreign grantees tracks the NGOsource certification document, the ED issue date, and the 2-year renewal window, with automatic flag before ED expiration if a subsequent tranche is scheduled. The compliance officer sees the ER and ED position of the portfolio at a glance rather than reconstructing from a spreadsheet twice a year.
What integration does Strkr have with QuickBooks for payment processing?
Open REST API plus webhook integrations with QuickBooks Online and QuickBooks Online Accountant for the foundation's general ledger. Scheduled grant payments push to QuickBooks as bills with vendor record, grant reference, scheduled date, and conditions-precedent status. The CFO or finance team reviews and releases payment through QuickBooks on the regular AP cycle. Grant disbursement, grantee refunds, and recovery of unused grant funds all reconcile to the grants record automatically. The 990-PF prep running in Strkr aligns to the QuickBooks GL without a quarter-end reconciliation project. For foundations running Sage Intacct or NetSuite, those integrations are also available.
How does Strkr AI help with proposal review?
Strkr AI reads submitted proposals and drafts a one-page summary with four elements: program alignment score against the foundation strategy, flagged risk areas (concentration risk, leadership transition, prior reporting issues, financial sustainability concerns), proposed outcomes and the logic model logic, and the three questions the program officer should raise on the site visit or in follow-up. Each observation cites the proposal section driving it, so the program officer verifies rather than taking the AI output on faith. The 90-minute first-pass review that used to open each proposal collapses to a 20-minute review-and-edit workflow, which lets program officers run deeper second-pass review on the proposals that advance.
What is the migration path from Fluxx or Foundant?
Strkr has a migration toolkit for Fluxx Grantmaker, Foundant GLM, and SmartSimple that pulls grantee records, grant history, document archives, custom fields, and automations. Typical foundations complete the move in 8 to 14 weeks running both systems in parallel before cutover. The grantee portal transitions with saved applications and the grantee contact list migrated so applicants do not lose work-in-progress. Historical grant history (often 10-plus years of data at longer-tenured foundations) migrates with full fidelity so the renewal decision context stays intact. We recommend timing cutover for a period between major grant cycles rather than mid-cycle, which usually points to late spring or late summer at most foundations.
No sales call, no migration consultant, no four-month implementation. Enter your card, get 14 days of the full Pro tier, cancel any time before day 14 with zero charge. Spin up a workspace, import your CSV, and have something useful before lunch.
We use cookies.
Essential cookies keep the site working. If you accept, we also enable Google Analytics
so we can see which pages help and which don't. Reject to opt out entirely. Details in our
Privacy Policy.
