Audience research
Part of Researching who actually wants a small business grant, and who is merely interested
Small business grants: a checklist for competitor research
A source-led checklist for comparing business grant programmes, directories and commercial advisory services serving small firms in England.
Competitor research in the grant sector should compare like with like.
What to take away
- Name the public funder, directory, advisers and suppliers and supplier in separate rows.
- Use the same criteria and units for every entry, and separate free access from contingent, fixed and subscription fees.
- Record the evidence gap by marking claims that rely only on the provider's description and set a recheck date.
- Add at least two named English examples for each entity type and one worked comparison row.
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:
Four entity types to compare
Public funder
- Provides
- Award programme
- Evidence
- Official scheme data
- Do not
- Rank together
Directory or publisher
- Provides
- Discovery content
- Evidence
- Listing method
- Do not
- Rank together
Application adviser
- Provides
- Application support
- Evidence
- Contract and fees
- Do not
- Rank together
Project supplier
- Provides
- Goods and delivery
- Evidence
- Quotation and contract
- Do not
- Rank together
| Entity type | What it provides | Appropriate evidence | England-active examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public funder | Award programme and decision process | Official scheme, accounts and award data | Innovate UK Smart Grants; Start Up Loans |
| Directory or publisher | Discovery and explanatory content | Listing method, update record and source links | 360Giving GrantNav; Idox GrantFinder |
| Application adviser | Research or application support | Contract, fee disclosure and verifiable service record | Leyton; Ayming |
| Project supplier | Goods or delivery after an award | Product record, quotation, contract and delivery evidence | Mace Group; Ricoh UK |
Apply the same criteria to one funder, one directory and one adviser.
Public funder: Innovate UK Smart Grants
- Legal or official name
- Innovate UK
- Function
- Grant funding for innovation
- Access fee
- Free to apply
- Published scope
- Competition brief on GOV.UK
- Source visible
- GOV.UK page
- Evidence gap
- Award data on GOV.UK
- Recheck date
- 30 June 2026
Directory: GrantNav
- Legal or official name
- 360Giving
- Function
- Grant data search
- Access fee
- Free to use
- Published scope
- Dataset and publisher pages
- Source visible
- 360Giving source
- Evidence gap
- Listing method published
- Recheck date
- 30 June 2026
Adviser: Leyton
- Legal or official name
- Leyton
- Function
- R&D tax credit and grant support
- Access fee
- Contingent fee, typically 15% to 30% of recovered amount
- Published scope
- Firm's own service pages
- Source visible
- Firm's own site
- Evidence gap
- Fee and success record not independently verified
- Recheck date
- 30 June 2026
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 (the GOV.UK service "Finance and support for your business") is a discovery source for public support. It should not be used as proof that a commercial adviser is approved by government.
Verify each entity
- Record legal or official name
- Open own service description
- Check eligibility, fees, deadlines, area
- Distinguish public from commercial
- Save source page and access date
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 (the CMA collection "Reviews and social media endorsements: what businesses and content creators must know") 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.
Test the user journey
- Check geography and eligibility visible
- Record information collected and why
- Check listing source and date
- Follow listing to funder page
- Note accessibility and non-digital routes
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.
Worked entry: an adviser page claims a high success rate but gives no sample size, period or client list. Mark the claim unverified. Recheck date: 30 June 2026.
Where to verify English grant data
- GOV.UKuse the finance and support finder for public schemes, and the funder's own GOV.UK page for award data.
- Charity Commissioncheck registered charity status, accounts and governing documents for charitable grant makers.
- Companies Housecheck company number, filing history and accounts for commercial directories, advisers and suppliers.
Report without overclaiming
Describe findings at the level the method supports. 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.
Before you act
- Assign one researcher, one reviewer and one date to the exercise.
- Keep the evidence file with source pages and access dates.
- Decide in advance how advertising will be labelled.
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.
