Behind the scenes: how Grants reviews your EXIST application

Our parser automatically detects all chapters in your application and flags missing sections and unanswered questions. We compare your content against the official EXIST requirements and patterns from dozens of successful applications. Open points like 'Have you introduced your team?' are highlighted with concrete to-dos: 'Add risk analysis', 'Expand market size estimate'. A clear action list, not a vague score.

Using natural language processing we check the readability and logical structure of your texts. We calculate a readability score and provide tips for clearer formulations. Long sentences and missing transitions are flagged. We also flag passive formulations and heavy jargon so your text remains understandable for jury members without deep domain expertise.

We validate your financial and market figures against industry benchmarks and statistics. This covers market size (are your TAM/SAM/SOM figures in a realistic proportion?), business model (are revenue sources and cost structure internally consistent?), and data sources (alternative studies or databases are recommended when your numbers look out of range). A financial plan that internally contradicts itself is flagged here.

Your unique selling proposition is the centrepiece: we analyse how clearly you communicate impact, distinctiveness, and technological novelty. Social, ecological, and economic effects are categorised. We show you whether your project reads as technically groundbreaking or incremental by comparing it to similar proposals. We also suggest which studies or patents you could cite to support your claims.

Your result at a glance: an interactive dashboard visualises scores and prioritised improvement suggestions. Feedback is clustered thematically by completeness, quality, plausibility, and impact. Each issue is rated high / medium / low priority. Export your evaluation as a PDF to discuss with your team or mentor.

Three professional tips before you upload: core message (hold your main arguments in at most two sentences – if you can't, the argument isn't clear yet), proof points (use numbers, charts, or quotes to support every major claim), and peer review (have a non-specialist colleague read the final draft to test comprehension for jury members outside your field).