It's the night before your grant is due. Did you answer every scored criterion — and can you source every number?
ScoreMyGrant scores your draft against the funder's own rubric (points-at-risk per criterion) and flags every claim that isn't backed by your own documents — so you catch what a reviewer would dock, before you submit.
Built for the scorecards you're up against:
One tool, two high-stakes jobs
Same review engine, pointed at whichever scorecard you have to survive.
Grant proposals
You're an in-house grant writer staring down a deadline. ScoreMyGrant scores your draft against the funder's published review criteria and point scheme, and flags every number or claim that isn't sourced in your own documents.
Reviewed against funders like:
Accreditation self-studies
You're assembling a self-study against an accreditor's standards. ScoreMyGrant scores each standard, shows where the narrative is thin, and flags claims your evidence files don't actually back up.
Mapped to standards from:
Built to survive the reviewer's scorecard
Three things a free chatbot won't reliably do for a scored, high-stakes document.
Scored against the reviewer's own point scheme
ScoreMyGrant scores your draft against the funder's own published criteria — or your accreditor's standards — and shows points-at-risk per criterion. That's the job free tools skip: telling you exactly where a reviewer would dock you.
Grounded to your uploaded documents
Every claim is either cited to a passage in your own files or flagged as unsourced. No hallucinated stats, no invented citations — if the evidence isn't in what you gave it, ScoreMyGrant says so.
Privacy-first — we review, we don't write
Your unpublished proposal never goes to a public chatbot, and we never train on your documents. A review tool (not a writing tool) stays on the safe side of funder and institutional AI-use rules.
Why not just use ChatGPT, NotebookLM, or Grammarly?
Those tools summarize, draft, and cite. They don't do the one job that decides whether you get funded.
They don't score against the point scheme
ChatGPT and NotebookLM will summarize your draft and even cite your sources — but they won't score it against HRSA, NIH, NSF, DOJ, or Dept. of Ed point schemes, and they can't tell you you're leaving points on a specific criterion.
They invent the stats you'd catch by hand
General chatbots confidently fabricate numbers and citations. On a scored proposal, a single invented figure is exactly what a reviewer flags. ScoreMyGrant shows you which claims aren't backed by your own files.
They're built for a different job
Grammarly fixes grammar. NotebookLM answers questions about your docs. None of them is built to walk your draft, criterion by criterion, through the reviewer's scorecard.
Built for the one job those tools skip: surviving the reviewer's scorecard.
From draft to scored review
Send your criteria + draft
Upload the funder's NOFO / review criteria (or your accreditor's standards), your draft, and your evidence files — or get emailed instructions and send them in.
ScoreMyGrant scores it
ScoreMyGrant scores your draft criterion by criterion, surfaces points-at-risk, and checks every claim against your uploaded evidence.
You fix it before a reviewer sees it
You get a scored review: where you'd lose points, which claims are unsourced, and what to fix first — in time to fix it before you submit.
Start free. Pay only if it's worth it.
Per deadline
Pay only when you have a proposal or self-study due. One flat price per deadline crunch.
Get your free reviewUnlimited
Unlimited reviews for one professional who's always got something due. Cancel anytime.
Get your free reviewStop guessing what a reviewer will dock. See it first.
Get your first scored review free — then $24/mo or $12 per deadline.