Small business grants: a checklist for competitor research

Competitor research in the grant sector should compare like with like. A public funder, a grant directory, an application adviser and a project supplier may address the same search query while performing different jobs.

What to take away

• Do not rank public funders, directories, advisers and suppliers in one list because they serve different functions.
• Use the same criteria and units for every entry, and separate free access from contingent, fixed and subscription fees.
• A desk review can assess published scope, pricing language and source transparency but cannot prove service quality.
• Record the evidence gap by marking claims that rely only on the provider's description and set a recheck date.
• Separate advertising from inclusion so sponsored placements do not change comparison criteria or factual checks.

Define the comparison

• State whether the research concerns funding programmes, discovery services, advisers or delivery suppliers.
• Name the English geography and research date.
• Define the reader's task, such as finding a scheme or preparing an application.
• Exclude organisations that do not perform the compared function.

Use a comparison frame before collecting names:

Entity type	What it provides	Appropriate evidence
Public funder	Award programme and decision process	Official scheme, accounts and award data
Directory or publisher	Discovery and explanatory content	Listing method, update record and source links
Application adviser	Research or application support	Contract, fee disclosure and verifiable service record
Project supplier	Goods or delivery after an award	Product record, quotation, contract and delivery evidence

Do not rank these four types in one list. They solve different parts of the journey.

Verify each entity

• Record the legal or official organisation name.
• Open the organisation's own description of the service.
• Check current eligibility, fees, deadlines and delivery area.
• Distinguish public programmes from commercial services.
• Save the exact source page and access date.

The GOV.UK finance and support finder is a discovery source for public support. It should not be used as proof that a commercial adviser is approved by government.

Compare the service honestly

• Use the same criteria and units for every entry.
• Separate free access from contingent, fixed and subscription fees.
• State whether application writing, financial modelling or claims work is included.
• Record whether the service guarantees an outcome. Treat guarantees as a warning sign.
• Disclose referral fees, sponsorship or affiliate relationships.

Do not infer quality from a firm's own testimonials. The CMA's reviews and endorsements guidance explains responsibilities around genuine reviews, concealed incentives and review publication.

Examine the user journey

• Test whether a business can understand geography and eligibility before giving contact details.
• Record what information the service collects and why.
• Check whether the source and date of a grant listing are visible.
• Follow a listing to the funder's current page.
• Note accessibility and non-digital support routes.

Repeat the same discovery task for each comparable service. Record the starting page, number of steps, information requested, source visibility and outcome. If an account or payment is required, stop unless the review method authorises it and the cost is disclosed.

Search for a deliberately unsuitable scheme as well as a plausible one. A useful directory should help a reader rule out poor matches, not merely return more results. Record whether expired opportunities remain visible and how clearly they are labelled.

Record the evidence gap

• Mark claims that rely only on the provider's description.
• Do not claim first-hand testing unless the method and tester are recorded.
• Do not rank providers when evidence is insufficient.
• Set a recheck date for fast-changing listings, prices and deadlines.

Report without overclaiming

Describe findings at the level the method supports. A desk review can assess published scope, pricing language and source transparency. It cannot prove service quality, application success or adviser competence. A mystery-shopping test needs a documented scenario, date, tester and disclosure of any payment.

Keep screenshots or archived notes for claims likely to change, while linking readers to the current public page. Give the organisation a fair opportunity to correct a material factual error before publication, but do not offer control over the editorial verdict.

Separate advertising from inclusion. A sponsored placement may be sold only if its status is obvious and it does not change the comparison criteria or factual checks. Record who selected each entry and why it qualified.

The output should help an England-based business understand the choices, not create a league table from incomparable services. This draft contains no live internal links and requires entity-by-entity verification before publication.

Before you act

• Define the reader's task and the English geography before collecting names.
• Verify each entity's legal name, current eligibility, fees and delivery area.
• Test the same discovery task for each comparable service and record the steps.
• Mark claims that rely only on the provider's description as unverified.
• Give the organisation a fair chance to correct material factual errors before publication.
• Disclose referral fees, sponsorship or affiliate relationships in your comparison.

Common questions

Why should public funders, directories, advisers and suppliers not be ranked together?

They solve different parts of the journey. A public funder provides an award programme and decision process, a directory offers discovery and explanatory content, an adviser gives research or application support, and a supplier provides goods or delivery after an award. Ranking them in one list would compare incomparable services.

What can a desk review prove about a grant adviser's service quality?

A desk review can assess published scope, pricing language and source transparency. It cannot prove service quality, application success or adviser competence. To test those, you would need a mystery-shopping test with a documented scenario, date, tester and disclosure of any payment.

How should you handle expired opportunities in a grant directory?

Record whether expired opportunities remain visible and how clearly they are labelled. A useful directory should help a reader rule out poor matches, not merely return more results. Search for a deliberately unsuitable scheme as well as a plausible one to test this.