RQ Platform is built for simple programs. Reviewr is built for serious ones.
RQ Platform is friendly and simple by design — a nice way to get a small program online. But judging is where programs get serious, and that's where it thins out: random review groups instead of real assignment models, no score normalization, and the capabilities a growing program needs price blocked by tiers.
Reviewr is built for serious, fair, and compliant evaluation from day one, with the essential tools in every plan.
RQ's auto-assignment builds random review groups — there are no coverage rules like minimum and maximum reviews per submission, no judge queue with scoring thresholds, no score normalization, and no AI review tools. Rule-based reviewer assignment exists, but it's reserved for the top Professional plan.
Configurable judging models built in: conflicts, panels, tiers, coverage thresholds, and randomized distribution, plus normalized scoring that surfaces reviewer bias and AI-assisted review — in every plan.
RQ's side-by-side judging renders the submission as a print-style PDF — reviewers don't get the form, files, and supplemental materials natively. And when admins open a submission, they see it through the applicant's own interface, limiting what they can actually do with it.
A native side-by-side reviewer view with the full application — form, files, and supplemental materials embedded — and a true admin view built for managing submissions, not just reading them.
Growing on RQ means climbing the pricing ladder: programs are capped at 1 category until Standard (3) and Professional (10), and judging itself, SmartTracker post-selection workflows, funding allocation, multiple collaborators, and rule-based assignment are all metered across tiers.
The essential tools are in every plan. Multi-category programs, real judging, post-award workflows, and collaboration don't require stepping up to a bigger tier.
RQ's own users report scoring reports that take several tries to come out right, a journey to pull a usable report, and confusing account and group lookups — with no easy way to see a person's past award-cycle history.
Accurate, board-ready reporting the first time — with clear program dashboards and the historical visibility to see how applicants and reviewers have participated across cycles.
RQ's evaluation model is simple: create a review group, put submissions and evaluators in it, and let auto-assign randomize. There are no coverage rules — no "each submission scored at least three times" — no judge queue, no score normalization to catch a harsh or generous reviewer, and no AI assistance. Rule-based assignment exists, but only on the top Professional plan. And in the side-by-side view, your reviewers are reading a print-style PDF rather than the living application.
To be fair, RQ's applicant experience is genuinely clean and their support is beloved — that's not where the gap is. But judging is where a program's credibility gets made, and Reviewr is built for it: configurable assignment models with coverage thresholds, normalized scoring that surfaces reviewer bias, AI-assisted review, and materials embedded right in the reviewer view.
No sales pressure. No commitment required.
The all-in-one platform for managing scholarships, grants and awards programs.
