Reviews
Part of Small business grants reviews: how to compare advisers
Small business grants agency review: GrantTree's public claims read against seven checks
Apply seven checks to one grant consultancy's public pages, GrantTree, covering services, success claims, identity, fees and reviews, with no ranking.
A grant consultancy's website is a set of claims, not a test result. This review applies seven checks to the public pages of one consultancy, GrantTree, and records what those pages do and do not establish. It ranks nobody and scores no service, because no paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested.
What to take away
- The reviewed GrantTree pages list three service tiersFull Service Write, Grants Collaborate and Grant Review.
- They give a 65%+ success figure and £400 million+ secured, both first-party claims with no stated denominator.
- The same page cites about 5% of applicants funded in competitions and a success rate over 60%, two figures that need a defined base before they can be compared.
- The reviewed pages name the brand, not the contracting company, and list no fees.
- Inclusion is not endorsement.
The seven checks applied to GrantTree
The table applies each check to the public pages reviewed: the innovation grants service page and the About page. A blank finding means the page did not say.
| Check | What the reviewed pages show | Still to obtain |
|---|---|---|
| Legal entity | Brand name and founders, no contracting company | Companies House record and contract party |
| Scope | Three tiers, with named writer and reviewer roles for the full service | Written proposal and exclusions |
| Fees | No fees stated on the pages | Fee scenarios in writing |
| Named team | About page lists team members | Names and roles in the contract |
| Success claims | 65%+ and over 60%, base not defined | Numerator, denominator, period and schemes |
| References | Named client testimonials, first-party | Calls made through your own route |
| Data and exit | Not covered | Security, data and exit terms |
How to read a success rate
A success rate needs a numerator, a denominator and a period. Ask whether it counts submitted applications or client engagements, whether weak bids were turned away first, and whether it covers one scheme or several. A high rate can reflect careful client selection rather than better writing.
Ask the same of money secured. A cumulative total says little about a single competition, and an award is not a completed project. Request a list of comparable clients, scheme names and dates that you can check with the funder.
Verify identity and filings
Start with the register. The GOV.UK page Get information about a company says some details are free, including company information, current and resigned officers, document images and insolvency information. Match the entity on a proposal to the entity on the register.
Compare the registered address, the date of incorporation and the officers with the people who will sign the contract. A trading name on a website is not a contracting party. Use the vendor due diligence checklist for the wider warning signs.
Reviews and testimonials
Testimonials on a consultancy's own site are first-party claims. The Competition and Markets Authority open letter on reviews addressed clearly labelling paid promotions and the writing, commissioning and publishing of fake reviews, so ask how testimonials were collected.
Ask for a reference you choose yourself, from a client with a comparable project, and keep notes of the call. Check any award named in a testimonial against the funder's own announcement. The review methodology sets out the evidence levels used on this site.
Fees, contracts and conflicts
Compare fee models on one brief, using the same project and the same assumptions. The pricing models guide explains fixed fees, day rates, retainers and success fees. A success fee is not free: price it against the grant you expect.
Read the contract points before signing, covering scope, evidence duties, termination and data. Ask whether one firm can both prepare an application and give assurance on the claim, and who is responsible for each conclusion.
Evidence needed for a verdict
A fair comparison needs the same realistic brief and a written proposal from each suitable adviser. Review the named team, timetable, your workload, exclusions, fee scenarios and contract. Paid sample work can test factual challenge, writing and response to correction.
It still cannot prove that the adviser caused an award, because the competition, the project and outside conditions also affect the result. Use the selection checklist to record each answer, and see grant providers for a wider desk review.
Before you act
- Match the proposal's company name to the Companies House record.
- Ask for the success-rate numerator, denominator and period.
- Obtain a named proposal and complete fee scenarios.
- Contact comparable references through your own route.
- Confirm data, security and exit terms.
- Record any conflict of interest in writing.
Common questions
What did this review examine?
The public GrantTree pages describing its innovation grant services, three tiers, team and published success figures. No paid engagement, proposal, reference call or live application was tested, so the review gives no score for quality or value.
Why does the review not rank consultancies?
Public pages cannot show quality, success or value. Success figures and testimonials are first-party claims. A ranking needs the same brief, written proposals, independent references and contract evidence from each adviser.
What should a buyer do before selecting an adviser?
Check the legal entity on the Companies House register, ask how any success rate is calculated, compare fees on one brief, read the contract and confirm who does the work. Keep every answer in writing.
