A Submittable alternative for collecting grantee reports

Submittable is one of the better-known platforms funders use to run grant programs. If you are searching for an alternative, it is usually for one of two reasons: you are a small foundation that needs part of what it does and is weighing whether the whole platform is worth it, or you are already on it and most of your staff time still goes into one stage, chasing reports after the grant is made.

This guide sets out what Submittable describes itself as doing, the job a small funder often actually needs done, and how to compare a lighter tool fairly. It is written from public information as of October 2026. Product features and prices change, so check the current details with any vendor, including us.

What Submittable says it does

On its own homepage, Submittable says it "makes software thousands of foundations, governments, and corporations use to run grant and CSR programs." It addresses three audiences: governments and the public sector, foundations and nonprofits, and corporations running CSR and employee giving programs.

The homepage walks through a program from start to finish, and its last stage is "Report on impact," with "Track budgets in real time" and "Report on impact across programs." Pricing is not published on the homepage; the calls to action are to talk to sales and watch a demo.

In short, it is a full platform for running grant programs, from the application to reporting on impact. That breadth is the point of it, and for a funder running open calls with many applicants, it is a reasonable thing to want.

The job many small funders need done

A small or family foundation often gives by invitation to organizations it already knows. It does not run open calls with a public form. The board decides at its meetings. The award letter comes from a template. What fills the week is the period after the award:

• remembering each grant's report due dates;
• emailing each grantee before the date and again when nothing arrives;
• saving the files that come back in the right folder;
• reading each report against what the grant asked for;
• writing the follow-up when something is missing;
• telling the board which grantees are late, and whether a payment should wait.

If that is your job, the useful question is not "what replaces Submittable?" but "what is the least tool that gets reports in on time and shows me who is late?"

When a full platform is still the right choice

Stay with Submittable, or choose a full grants platform, if:

• you run open application cycles with many applicants you do not know;
• you need structured application forms, eligibility screening and reviewer scoring;
• several staff or volunteers share one grant portfolio;
• you want applications, awards, budgets and impact reporting in one system;
• you have a person with the time to configure and maintain it.

A lighter tool will not do those things, and you should not try to make it.

What a lighter alternative should do

If your need is post-award reporting, compare tools on this list rather than on the length of their feature pages.

• Starts from your spreadsheet. Upload active grants with grantee, contact email, report name and due date. No migration project.
• Supports several reports per grant, each with its own date and its own requirements.
• Reaches grantees without a new login. Check what a grantee has to do to send you a report. If it needs an account, ask how the grantee's staff changes and forgotten passwords are handled.
• Puts your requirements in front of the grantee when they upload, not in last year's award letter.
• Reminds on a schedule that ends. Before and after the due date, from your foundation's name with replies to your own inbox, and then hands a stalled report back to you.
• Groups what is due into one email per grantee instead of one per report.
• Reads what comes back against your requirements and drafts the follow-up, without sending anything on its own.
• Shows one overdue list, with grants that have a payment coming up flagged.
• Exports your data and the log of every reminder.

How to compare fairly

Price the whole year. Ask each vendor for the total cost for your number of active grants over twelve months, including any setup or onboarding fees and any minimum contract term. Where prices are not published, get them in writing.

Time to first reminder. If your next set of final reports is due in six weeks, a tool that takes two months to set up does not help this cycle.

Look at what the grantee sees. Ask for the actual email and page a grantee gets. That is the part that decides whether reports come in on time.

Test with a real report. Upload one of last year's final reports and see what the tool does with it. Does anything compare it with your requirements, or does it only record that a file arrived?

Check what you give up. If you move off a full platform, decide where applications, award letters and payment records will live. A spreadsheet and a shared drive are fine for many small funders, but decide on purpose.

Where Report Back fits

Report Back is a narrow tool for the post-award stage. You upload your active grants from a spreadsheet, with no grants management system needed, and write what each report type must cover. Each grantee gets one no-login link listing every report it owes and when. Reminders go 30, 14 and 3 days before each due date, on the day, and 7 and 14 days after, from your foundation's name with replies to your inbox. Each upload is checked against your requirements, with a drafted follow-up for anything that looks missing, and you decide whether to accept the report or send the follow-up. One overdue list shows who is late and flags grants with a payment coming up.

It does not take applications, score them, make payments or report on impact across programs. If you need those, a platform like Submittable is built for them. If you need the reports in, run the checklist above against each option, including ours. For more on the trade-offs, see what foundation grants management a small funder needs.