Direct comparison
Type 1 vs. Type 2 Grant (NIH) Explained
NIH Type 1 = new application. Type 2 = competing renewal, fully peer-reviewed. Learn the difference, which mechanisms allow renewal, and where it shows up.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · free to try
Ask about Type 1 vs. Type 2 Grant (NIH) Explained
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Type 1 (New Application), Type 2 (Competing Renewal) compare side by side?
The table below compares Type 1 (New Application), Type 2 (Competing Renewal) across 7 procurement-relevant dimensions, from what it requests through not to be confused with.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Type 1 (New Application) | Type 2 (Competing Renewal) |
|---|---|---|
| What it requests | Support for a project not currently receiving NIH funding | Additional support for a period beyond a current award's existing project period |
| Peer review | Full scientific/technical merit review, standard study section process | Full peer review required -- must be developed as though applying for the first time, not a formality |
| Competes for funding | Yes | Yes -- competes against Type 1 and other applications in the same cycle |
| Prior-progress evidence expected | Not applicable (no prior NIH award on this project) | Yes -- reviewers weigh progress, publications, and milestones from the current project period |
| Grant-number digit | Leading "1" (e.g. 1 R01 CA123456-01) | Leading "2" (e.g. 2 R01 CA123456-06A1) |
| Availability by mechanism | Available for essentially all NIH activity codes | Mechanism-dependent -- e.g. available for R01, NOT available for R21 (no renewal mechanism) |
| Not to be confused with | N/A | Type 5 (noncompeting continuation/RPPR) and No-Cost Extensions, neither of which involve competing peer review |
Common questions
Common questions about Type 1 (New Application) vs Type 2 (Competing Renewal)
Is a Type 2 the same as a No-Cost Extension?
+
No. A No-Cost Extension keeps an existing project period going longer with no new funds and no new peer review. A Type 2 is a separate, fully competing application for an entirely new project period, peer-reviewed on its own merits.
Can any NIH activity code have a Type 2 renewal?
+
No -- renewal eligibility is set by the activity code and sometimes the specific Funding Opportunity Announcement. R01 supports Type 2 competing renewal; R21 explicitly does not.
Does a Type 2 application need to be as detailed as a Type 1?
+
Yes. NIH policy requires a competing renewal to be fully developed and peer-reviewed as though the applicant were applying for the first time.
Where does the Type code appear on an NIH award?
+
As the leading digit of the NIH grant number, before the activity code -- for example the "1" in 1 R01 GM123456-01 or the "2" in 2 R01 GM123456-06A1.
Going deeper
