For UK community interest companies
Find funders who already give to work like yours.
Funders rarely publish what is open. They do publish what they have already given — and that is the better evidence. We work back from awarded UK grants to the funders worth your time, weigh up each fund you find, and help you write the answers from facts you have confirmed.
An email address and a password. Nothing to install, and no card.
Half their grants land between £5k and £15k. You are asking for £30,000 — the top of their range, not the middle of it.
Find who to ask
Funders whose past giving matches your size, your area and your kind of work — with the grants they actually made as the evidence.
Weigh what you found
Eligibility checked against the funder’s own words, the work priced in hours, and the last day you could still start.
Write it
Draft from facts you have confirmed, with every sentence showing the fact behind it — or write it yourself from a blank box.
One · Find
The evidence is in what funders have already given
Hundreds of UK funders publish their awarded grants openly, through the 360Giving standard. That data answers the question a directory cannot: not “who might fund this” but who has actually written this cheque before — to an organisation your size, in your area, for work like yours.
So you get a shortlist with its reasoning attached: what they typically give, how often, to whom, and how your ask compares to the grants they really make. A funder whose median grant is £9,000 is not the right ask for £30,000, and that is worth knowing before you write anything.
In buildThe screens, the matching and the charts are finished. The grant corpus is being loaded — until it is, you add the funds you already know about by hand.
- Close match
A community foundation
38 grants to CICs in your county · median £9,000 · typically 12 months
- Worth a look
A national youth trust
12 grants for skills work · median £24,000 · rarely funds under £15,000
- Not for this
A capital-only foundation
Buildings and equipment only · no revenue grants on record
Illustration — invented funders. Real matches cite the grants they came from.
Two · Weigh
Whether this one is worth your week
Bring the fund — from a newsletter, a council email, a funder’s own page. Ten kinds of rule are checked in code against what you have told us: legal form, area, amount, how long you have traded, match funding, who benefits and the rest. Every verdict shows the funder’s own sentence it came from, so you are checking their words and not ours.
Then the part nobody else tells you: roughly how many hours the form will take, what that makes the grant worth per hour, and the last day you could still start and finish it.
When a rule cannot be settled it stays unknown. It is never rounded up to a yes.
£30,000 for about 11 hours of work. You meet every criterion we can check.
- Effort
- ~11h
- Per hour
- £2,727
- Start by
- 14 Oct
- MetLegal form —
open to charities and community interest companies
- MetArea —
we fund across the South West
- UnknownMatch funding — their guidance does not say
Three · Write
Drafting that cannot make things up about you
Paste the funder’s questions and you can have each answer drafted — or write every word yourself. It is an option, not the point of the product.
When you do use it, it only ever sees facts you have confirmed. Every sentence it writes has to name the fact behind it, and a sentence that cites something we did not give it is thrown away before you ever see it. Where no fact supports a claim, it says so and asks you rather than inventing a number.
That is why it will hand back a short answer instead of filling the word count. Padding is how invented detail gets in.
We work with young people aged 14 to 19 across Somerset.Beneficiary groups · confirmed
Last year 132 took part in our twelve-week practical skills course.People supported last year · confirmed
This grant would let us run two further cohorts.No fact behind this yet — you will be asked
What it will not do
- It will tell you not to apply. Knowing what to skip is most of the value. A fund you are not eligible for is shown as not worth it, with the reason, rather than buried at the bottom of a list.
- It will not predict your chances. Nothing here claims to know whether you will win. It estimates effort and checks rules — two things that can be worked out — and refuses to put a percentage on the one that cannot.
- It will not claim a fund is open when nobody knows. A deadline we have not seen the funder publish is labelled as an estimate, not a date.
- It will not copy funders’ pages into a database. Awarded-grant data is used under its open licence. A fund you bring is read for you, kept to you, and linked back to the funder’s own page.
- Nobody else can see your work. Your facts, documents and applications are yours. Even the console this service is run from has no database privilege to read them — enforced by Postgres, not by a promise.
Start with one fund
Tell us about your organisation, add the fund on your desk, and see what it says. If the answer is “do not bother”, that was worth knowing before Tuesday.