Looking for a WizeHive alternative? Start with the right questions.
AwardScience runs scholarships, grants and awards on one AI-native platform: applicants get a guided, autosaving form on any device, reviewers get a focused queue, and every decision stays with your committee.
Why scholarship and grant teams look for an alternative
Scholarship and grant programmes are judged twice: once by the committee, and once by the applicants who had to get through the form. Long applications, transcripts, references and supporting documents all have to arrive complete and on time, often from people applying on a phone.
On the committee side, reviewers should see only what they are assigned, and administrators need a clear record of how each decision was reached when a board or an applicant asks.
Compare them side by side
Software changes constantly, so rather than describe someone else’s product, here is what AwardScience does and what to verify with any vendor on your shortlist.
| What to compare | AwardScience | WizeHive |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant experience | Guided, autosaving forms that work on any device, with deadline countdowns and a notifications centre in the applicant dashboard. | Ask to complete an application on a phone during the demo, including a file upload. |
| Documents and references | 30+ field types with conditional logic, and AI document extraction that reads an uploaded file and pre-fills fields for the applicant to confirm. | Ask how supporting documents and references are collected, and whether anything is pre-filled from them. |
| Committee review | Each reviewer gets a personal queue. AI proposes a score with written reasoning, and an anomaly view shows where the committee diverges most. The submitted score is always the reviewer’s own. | Ask what a reviewer sees when they open an application, and how committee disagreements are surfaced. |
| Who sees what | A rules engine scopes access by account type, process, stage and field values with AND/OR logic, so each reviewer sees only the applications their role allows. | Ask how a reviewer is kept away from applications they should not see, and how read-only auditor access works. |
| Changing the cycle | Stages, forms, conditions and deadlines are edited visually and republished, with form version history you can roll back. | Ask to watch a stage being added and republished live during the demo. |
| Data and AI governance | Customer data is never used to train any AI model. Hosting in the EU, US or Asia-Pacific, fixed by contract, with an exportable audit log and AI usage ledger. | Ask where data is hosted, whether the region is contractual, and get the AI training position in writing. |
Eight questions worth asking any vendor
- Can an applicant finish on a phone? Ask to complete one during the call, including an upload.
- What happens if an applicant loses connection halfway? Ask whether progress is saved automatically.
- Can your team change the cycle mid-round, without the vendor? Ask to watch a stage being added and republished.
- What does the AI actually do, and who decides? A proposed score with visible reasoning is very different from an automated outcome.
- How is a reviewer kept away from applications they should not see? Ask to see the access rule configured.
- Is our data used to train AI models? Get the answer in writing, in the contract.
- What does the audit trail show? Who reviewed what, when, against which form version, and who had access.
- What happens to last year’s cycle? Ask how the next round starts and how records are kept separate.
Where AwardScience is different
Two things stand out in practice. The applicant side gets as much attention as the administrator side, so more applications arrive complete. And people stay accountable for every decision affecting an applicant, with the record to prove it.
See it working in the video library, check the controls in the Trust Center, or read our Responsible AI commitments.
Switching: frequently asked questions
Can we move historic applications across?
Yes. Historic data can be imported, and AwardScience exports your data in full at any time so you are never locked in.
Can we run one scholarship on each platform first?
Yes, and we recommend it. Run a smaller scholarship or grant on AwardScience alongside your existing tool for a cycle before committing.
How long does it take to get a programme live?
Describe the programme, review the AI-drafted workflow, adjust the forms and publish. Most teams have something to test the same week.
Do we need developers?
No. Forms, stages, roles, review rounds and the public site are all configured without code.
Book a live demo and we will build a stage of your actual scholarship or grant during the call.