Every grant in our index is scored on the same six dimensions. The framework is fixed; the values change per program. The point is comparability, so you can read across programs without re-learning the scale.
We call this standard The GrantProbe Grant-Match Standard: six fixed dimensions scored against real program data, matched to applicants with our Grant Finder and Grant Map, and benchmarked against our open 100 Federal Grant Statistics study. Authored and reviewed by Vincent Wesley Couey (ORCID). No paid placements; programs are scored on merit. Our peer-archived, DOI-backed dataset: 2026 Federal Grant Reality Audit (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20632760).
Most grant directories are alphabetical lists. We reject that shape. A list with no scoring forces every reader to do their own evaluation from raw agency pages. That's the work we save you. Our six dimensions surface the decision in a single read:
Hard requirements: entity type, revenue band, geography, sector. A 100% match here is the gate. Anything else is wasted application hours.
Stated floor-to-ceiling award range plus the average actual award per cycle from agency reporting. Not the headline maximum.
usaspending.gov where the agency reports it.Open/close dates and historical rolling cadence. We flag programs in their pre-NOFO window so you can prepare ahead of the formal announcement.
Applicants per award where the agency publishes it. Where it isn't published, we mark the field "undisclosed" rather than guessing. High-competition programs are flagged explicitly.
usaspending.gov reports award counts. The Federal Register sometimes publishes total applicants. Foundation grants are typically undisclosed, we say so rather than fabricate.Document count, narrative page limit, audit requirements, matching-funds obligations, post-award reporting cadence. The honest hour-estimate, not the marketing one.
Every grant page links to one of four primary sources. We don't relay third-party grant lists. We cite the agency.
Every grant entry on this site links to one of four federal sources. If a program isn't published on at least one of them, it doesn't enter the index.
The shape of an editorial standard is partly defined by what it excludes. These are the practices that disqualify content from this site.
Federal and foundation grants don't run affiliate programs. If they did, we'd refuse the relationship. The credibility of an eligibility-first ranking depends on the absence of payment from the entities being ranked.
Many sites operate by copying NOFOs from grants.gov and adding affiliate-linked "writing service" upsells. The agency page is the source of truth; we link to it directly.
Every FAQ entry on this site is written against the actual program. Auto-generated FAQs that say "Yes, [program] is available" without verifying eligibility lead readers into wasted hours. We refuse the pattern.
The index lists 65+ programs because that's what we've reviewed. There are thousands of state, local, and foundation grants we haven't covered yet. We don't pad the count with stub entries.
Every grant page carries a "last-verified" date. When deadlines shift, we update the date. When eligibility tightens, we date the change in a visible "what changed" note.