Built by operators, not a SaaS team.
Grant Review Pro exists because we watched too many good companies lose a twelve-month cycle to an application nobody stress-tested first.
A rubric built the way a study section thinks.
Most grant-scoring tools are a generic AI wrapper pointed at a PDF. They don't know that under NIH's Simplified Review Framework only Factors 1 and 2 receive 1–9 criterion scores, Factor 3 is rated sufficient or not, and reviewers assign a single holistic Overall Impact score informed by all three — or that a single-compound program with no backup reads as fatal risk to a reviewer, or that an STTR partnership can fail before the science is ever read if the statutory work split (at least 40% small business / at least 30% research institution) is wrong. We built the rubric the way an actual study section thinks, and we're holding it to outcome data as results publish — not vibes.
Built by people who've lived the process.
Grant Review Pro is built by operators who have written grants, raised non-dilutive funding, and built biotech companies — not a generic product team that picked biotech as a vertical. Founder and advisor profiles will be published here as the reviewer advisory panel is named. That combination shows up in the product: it's why the STTR tool checks statutory work-split gates before it scores anything, and why Submission Readiness Check exists at all — because format failures are a completely avoidable way to lose a cycle. A reviewer advisory panel is being assembled; members will be named on the Trust page as they join.
A real biotech corridor, and transparent about it.
Grant Review Pro is being piloted with incubator-affiliated companies; we disclose any relationship with an incubator or partner institution on the assessment itself. We never charge a fee for introducing a company to a research institution, and we don't take a percentage of anyone's award — the same commitments detailed on the Trust page. Testing in a real biotech corridor is where the rubric's edge cases came from — and exactly why we disclose those relationships.
Verified and small beats comprehensive and wrong.
This product is early and says so elsewhere on this site — the methodology page shows a public change log, and the Trust page lists what we still can't verify (like a defensible success rate) and won't claim until we can. The Funding Opportunity Directory launched with 15 hand-verified programs, not hundreds, because we'd rather ship verified and small than comprehensive and wrong. That's the same standard the rest of the product is held to.