Granted AI vs Grantboost: Features, Pricing, and Real Results

September 9, 2025 · 8 min read

TJ Jackson

If you are shopping for an AI-powered grant writing tool, you have probably encountered both Granted AI and Grantboost. They are among the most visible platforms in the space, and on the surface they sound similar: both use artificial intelligence to help you write grant proposals faster.

But they take meaningfully different approaches to the problem, serve somewhat different audiences, and work best in different situations. This post breaks down those differences honestly. We build Granted AI, so we obviously have a perspective, but we will be straightforward about where Grantboost has strengths and where each tool is the better fit.

The Core Difference: Approach to Grant Writing

The most important distinction between these two platforms is not a feature checkbox -- it is a philosophy about how AI should help you write a grant.

Granted AI: RFP-Driven Drafting

Granted AI starts with your specific funding opportunity. You upload the RFP, NOFO, or solicitation, and the system analyzes the document to extract requirements, evaluation criteria, formatting rules, and section structure. It then builds a workspace organized around those requirements.

The workflow has three phases:

RFP Analysis. The platform reads the full solicitation and identifies what the funder is asking for -- required sections, page limits, scoring criteria, eligibility conditions, and submission requirements.
Coaching Questions. Before drafting begins, Granted asks you targeted questions about your project, organization, methodology, and team. These questions are generated from the specific RFP, not from a generic template. Your answers become the raw material for drafting.
Section-by-Section Drafting. Each section of your proposal is drafted individually, grounded in both your answers and the RFP requirements. A coverage tracker shows how thoroughly each section addresses the funder's criteria.

This approach means every proposal Granted produces is tailored to a specific opportunity from the start. The tradeoff is that the process requires more upfront input from you. You cannot skip the coaching questions and get a generic draft.

Grantboost: Template-Based Generation

Grantboost takes a more streamlined approach. You provide basic project information -- your organization name, project description, target population, goals, and budget -- and the platform generates proposal sections from templates calibrated to common grant structures.

The workflow is faster to start. You fill in a form with your project details, select the type of grant you are applying for, and Grantboost generates a draft that follows conventional proposal structure: need statement, goals and objectives, project narrative, budget justification, and so on.

This works well when the proposal format is relatively standard and when you need a solid first draft quickly. The templates reflect common foundation and government grant structures, and the output is generally well-organized and readable.

The tradeoff is that the output is not generated from your specific RFP. If the funder has unusual requirements, non-standard sections, or specific evaluation criteria that differ from the template, you will need to adapt the output manually.

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

RFP Analysis

Granted AI: Reads and analyzes the full RFP document. Extracts evaluation criteria, required sections, formatting requirements, eligibility conditions, and deadlines. Builds the workspace around the funder's specific structure.

Grantboost: Does not analyze uploaded RFPs. Proposal generation is based on the information you enter into the platform's forms, not on a specific solicitation document.

This is the biggest functional difference between the two tools. If you are responding to a complex federal solicitation with specific formatting rules, multiple required sections, and a detailed scoring rubric, Granted's RFP analysis gives you a structural advantage. If you are applying to a foundation with a straightforward application form, this feature matters less.

Coaching and Information Gathering

Granted AI: Generates targeted questions based on the RFP. The questions adapt to the specific opportunity -- a DARPA BAA will produce different questions than a USDA rural development grant. Your answers are stored and used across all sections of the proposal.

Grantboost: Uses a standard intake form where you enter your project details, organization information, and goals. The form is consistent across grant types.

Granted's approach extracts more detailed information but takes more time. Grantboost's form is faster to complete but may not capture nuances that matter for complex applications.

Section Drafting

Granted AI: Drafts sections individually, using your coaching answers and the RFP requirements as source material. Each section is generated with awareness of what the funder has asked for in that specific section. You can regenerate, edit, and refine each section independently.

Grantboost: Generates proposal sections from your intake information. Sections follow template structures for common grant types. You can edit the output and regenerate sections.

Both tools produce usable first drafts. Granted's drafts tend to be more closely tied to the specific language and requirements of the solicitation. Grantboost's drafts tend to follow a more standard structure that works across multiple funders.

Coverage Tracking

Granted AI: Includes a coverage panel that maps your proposal sections against the RFP requirements. It shows which requirements have been addressed, which are partially covered, and which are missing entirely. This is particularly valuable for long, complex solicitations where it is easy to miss a requirement buried on page 47.

Grantboost: Does not include RFP-specific coverage tracking, since it does not analyze the RFP document.

Document Export

Granted AI: Exports proposals as formatted documents that can be further edited in Word or Google Docs.

Grantboost: Exports completed proposals as Word documents or PDFs.

Both tools handle export competently. Neither replaces the need to format your final submission according to the funder's specific requirements.

Pricing Comparison

Pricing is one of the most commonly asked-about differences, so here is a direct comparison as of early 2026.

Granted AI

Starter Plan: $29/month. Includes RFP analysis, coaching, and section drafting for a limited number of proposals per month.
Professional Plan: $89/month. Full access to all features, higher usage limits, and priority support.
Free trial: 7-day free trial on all plans.

For current pricing details, see the Granted AI pricing page.

Grantboost

Standard Plan: $19.99/month. Includes access to the proposal generation tools and templates.
Higher-tier plans are available with additional features and higher usage limits.

Grantboost is less expensive at the entry level. For budget-constrained organizations -- particularly small nonprofits applying primarily to foundations -- the lower monthly cost is a meaningful advantage.

Granted's higher price reflects the additional complexity of RFP analysis and tailored coaching. For organizations responding to federal grants where proposals are 30+ pages and evaluation criteria are detailed and specific, the per-proposal value is generally higher.

Target Audience

Who Granted AI Serves Best

Researchers applying for federal grants. NIH, NSF, DOE, DARPA, and other federal agencies publish complex solicitations with detailed requirements. Granted's RFP analysis and coaching workflow is built for this use case.
Nonprofits applying for government program grants. USDA, EPA, HRSA, and similar agencies have structured applications with specific scoring rubrics. The coverage tracker is especially useful here.
Organizations responding to complex RFPs. If the solicitation is more than a few pages long and has specific evaluation criteria, Granted's approach adds significant value.

To see how Granted AI works for researchers specifically, visit the researcher workflow page.

Who Grantboost Serves Best

Nonprofits applying primarily to foundations. Foundation grants often have simpler application structures. A template-based approach that generates a clean need statement, goals section, and budget justification can be exactly what you need.
Organizations that need a fast first draft. If your primary bottleneck is getting words on the page, Grantboost's streamlined intake process gets you to a draft faster.
Grant writers managing many similar applications. If you are submitting variations of the same project to multiple funders with similar requirements, templates speed up the process.

Honest Assessment: Strengths of Each Tool

Where Granted AI Is Stronger

RFP fidelity. Because Granted reads the actual solicitation, its output tracks more closely to what the funder is asking for. This matters most for competitive federal grants where reviewers score proposals against specific criteria.

Complex proposals. For long, multi-section proposals with detailed requirements, the coaching workflow and coverage tracking help you stay organized and complete.

Evaluation criteria alignment. The coverage panel makes it straightforward to verify that your proposal addresses every criterion in the scoring rubric.

Where Grantboost Is Stronger

Speed to first draft. Grantboost's intake process is faster. If you need a draft quickly for a straightforward application, it gets you there with less upfront work.

Lower price point. At $19.99/month, Grantboost is more accessible for organizations with very tight budgets.

Simpler learning curve. The template-based approach is intuitive. You fill in your information and get a draft. There is less to learn about the platform before you start producing output.

Foundation grant templates. For standard foundation applications, Grantboost's templates are well-calibrated to the structures most foundations expect.

When to Choose Each Tool

Choose Granted AI if:

You are responding to a specific, complex RFP or NOFO
The grant has detailed evaluation criteria and a scoring rubric
You are applying for federal funding (NIH, NSF, USDA, EPA, DOE, DARPA, etc.)
The proposal requires multiple sections with specific content requirements
You want to ensure complete coverage of funder requirements
You are willing to invest more time upfront for a more tailored output

Choose Grantboost if:

You are applying to foundations with relatively standard application formats
You need a first draft quickly and plan to do significant manual editing
Your budget is very limited and the lower monthly cost matters
You are writing multiple similar proposals for different funders
The application does not have a complex RFP with detailed scoring criteria

Consider using both if:

You apply to both federal agencies and foundations regularly. Using Granted for federal submissions and Grantboost for simpler foundation applications can be a practical approach.

The Bigger Picture

Both Granted AI and Grantboost are tools, and tools work best when paired with domain expertise. Neither platform replaces the need to understand your project deeply, know your funder's priorities, and edit the output carefully. AI-generated first drafts -- from any tool -- need human judgment, subject matter expertise, and revision before they are ready for submission.

The best tool for you depends on the types of grants you apply for, your budget, and how much time you want to invest in the platform's workflow versus manual editing. For a more comprehensive overview of the AI grant writing tool landscape, see our comparison page that goes into additional detail.

If you are exploring your options, the most reliable approach is to try both. Grantboost offers a trial period, and Granted AI offers a 7-day free trial so you can test the full workflow with a real RFP before committing.

Keep Reading

Ready to write your next proposal? Granted AI analyzes your RFP, coaches you through the requirements, and drafts every section. Start your 7-day free trial today.