Your proposal will face a panel. Let it face ours first.

GrantPanel does not hand your proposal to a chatbot, or to a frontier model as-is. It convenes a panel of purpose-built agents, each calibrated to its role and to your agency's own review criteria: compliance and solicitation alignment checks, independent reviewer mandates, evidence checks, three rounds of deliberation, and a chaired consensus. The value is in the engineered process, not a single prompt.

We are researchers ourselves, and we would not hand our own unpublished work to a tool that kept it. Your proposal and supporting files are held only while the review runs and are deleted automatically the moment it finishes. The solicitation is kept for your proposal's 60-day revision window, so revision runs need not upload it again. Only the panel's written report is kept, in your account, so you can revise and run a revision review, and you can delete it at any time. Your files are never used to train models, by us or by our providers.

No, and the distinction matters, because you will see ratings in your report. Each reviewer scores your proposal on the agency's own scale, and the chair records where the panel came out. Those are this panel's judgement of this reading of your draft, and they are there for a reason: they are how you tell whether a revision actually moved anything. What they are not is a forecast. A real panel turns on who is assigned your proposal, what else is in the pile that day, and how the discussion goes on the morning. GrantPanel is practice, not prophecy: read the rating as a signal about your draft, not an estimate of your odds.

Any program with a written solicitation and review criteria: federal agencies such as NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD, NASA, and DOT, as well as foundations and institutional opportunities.

A full run — compliance, alignment, three reviewers, panel discussion, and summary — usually takes about 5 to 15 minutes. Most of that time is the deep literature search: the panel checks your novelty and prior-work claims against the current literature instead of relying on what a model already remembers. We could return a report in seconds by skipping that step and save API credits and costs, but it would cost the technical depth and rigor that make the review worth reading.

We tested them extensively, across the whole pipeline. Smaller and open-weight models handle the mechanical stages competently: spotting a missing section, checking a page limit, extracting citations. Where they consistently fall short is the part that makes a review worth reading. They summarize a proposal instead of interrogating it, agree with each other instead of holding distinct positions through three rounds of argument, miss the gap between what a claim asserts and what the cited evidence actually supports, and produce weaknesses too generic to act on. A cheaper review isn't a bargain if its findings are ones you could have written yourself. So your review runs on a mixture of models, each on the task it does best: fast, precise models for the mechanical stages they handle well, and frontier models for the reviews, the debate, and the chair's synthesis. None is ever downgraded to cut costs. We would rather charge honestly for that than quietly serve you a weaker panel.

A run is one complete panel: compliance and solicitation checks, a reference audit, three independent reviewers, three rounds of deliberation, and a chaired consensus. One proposal buys three of them. Nothing counts down while a proposal sits unused, so you can buy well before you are ready. The first run opens a 60-day window, and the other two are yours at any point inside it. Sixty days is deliberately longer than most revision cycles: it is meant to cover reading the panel's findings, rewriting, and running again before your deadline, without becoming an allowance you bank indefinitely against a different submission.

Because we are from academia and we know the work is not continuous. Proposal writing arrives in bursts around solicitations and deadlines, and in between you are teaching, running a lab, reviewing, and doing the research itself. A monthly fee would quietly bill you through every month you never open the tool. So you buy a proposal review when you have your proposal ready, an unused proposal review never expires, and nothing charges you for the semesters you do not need us.

Some do, and if what you want is a quick read-through of your draft, one of them may suit you. GrantPanel is doing a different amount of work. Every run is a full panel: compliance and solicitation checks, a reference audit, three independent reviewers, three rounds of deliberation, and a chaired consensus. Each stage is its own frontier-model call, not a single pass over your document. The most expensive part is the deep literature search: it queries the current literature on every run rather than relying on what a model happens to remember, and that search is a real cost we pay each time. We also move to newer frontier models as they are released instead of settling on an older, cheaper generation to protect our margin. For a proposal that represents years of work, and at a fraction of what a human grant consultant charges for the same read: we would rather be worth the price than be the cheapest.

Contact us at hello@grantpanel.ai with the documents you submitted (proposal and solicitation) and the report you received. Since your files are deleted after each run, we'll need you to re-send them. We will review what happened, and if the report fell short, refund you or credit your account.

Yes. Research-development teams can contact hello@grantpanel.ai for institutional access, privacy review, and purchasing.

No. GrantPanel is an independent preparation tool. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to any funding agency or foundation.