GrantHero vs Claude and ChatGPT: built for grants, not for chat
We use frontier models too, and a sharp founder with a good prompt can get a long way. What a chat window can’t give you is a human who’ll tell you not to apply (and why), a library of applications that actually won, and a workflow built for the job rather than a text box. That’s the difference.
A brilliant general-purpose writer. You supply the judgement.
Paste in the questions and you’ll get fluent, well-structured answers in seconds, for any competition you ask about. Whether you should apply, what a winning answer to this question looks like, and keeping forty answers coherent across weeks of edits: that’s all on you.
The same AI, with a human qualification step, winning examples, and a workflow.
Before anything is written, a grant expert tells you honestly whether to apply. Your context comes in automatically, no copy-pasting. The drafting draws on applications that scored and won, and the output lands in the funder’s own format, ready for the portal.
The bit a chat window can’t give you
Reassurance from someone who has done this before
A model will write you a fluent answer to anything. What it can’t do is read your draft with a bid-writer’s eye and tell you, straight, whether it would survive an assessor. That read, before you press submit, is most of what people pay us for.
-
1
A scoping call, not a prompt
Thirty minutes with a bid-writer who has read your project. A go / no-go, before you spend a week on it.
-
2
A review you can trust
Every answer scored the way the funder scores it, then a person tells you which of those flags actually matter.
-
3
Someone accountable for the output
A named reviewer who has written and reviewed funded applications. Not a text box that wants to be helpful.