Grant guide

FundingLens vs manual grant search

Manual grant search is still useful, especially for final source checks. The hard part is repeating it consistently across sources, deadlines and team decisions.

Best for

Teams deciding where to spend application time

Teams spending recurring time checking GOV.UK, UKRI, Innovate UK and funder websites for relevant opportunities.

Use this page to

Make the first review more concrete

Compare manual grant search with FundingLens for source monitoring and fit review.

Review workflow

What FundingLens helps you do

Keep source facts, caveats and next actions together so your team can decide what deserves attention before application work starts.

01

Manual search works well for one-off checking, funder familiarisation and final verification before an application decision.

02

FundingLens helps when the same team needs recurring monitoring, saved opportunities, fit scoring, deadline tracking and source-cited notes.

03

The best workflow keeps official sources as the authority while reducing repeated browser work and untracked spreadsheet notes.

Readiness checks

  • Official source pages still checked for final decisions.
  • Saved searches and profile criteria documented.
  • Fit, caveats and confidence tracked consistently.
  • Deadline and evidence work assigned to owners.
  • Stale or uncertain records flagged for review.

Eligibility caveats

  • Manual search may be enough for very small teams with one or two known funders.
  • FundingLens does not replace funder guidance or professional judgement.
  • No software can guarantee every opportunity or award outcome.

Source references

Related FundingLens pages