Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
An NIH R01 grant funded after standard study-section review is a competitive grant.
- Is an instance
An ERC Starting Grant funded after a multi-stage peer review is a competitive grant.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
A directed contract or sole-source award is not competitive.
- Not an instance
An internal seed allocation by departmental decision is typically non-competitive.
Editorial commentary
Competitive grants are the dominant model in research funding. Applicants respond to a call for proposals, proposals are peer-reviewed (often externally), and decisions are made by a panel based on scientific merit and fit. Success rates vary widely (often 10 to 25 percent in leading schemes). The competitive model is widely seen as protective of scientific quality, though it carries critiques around effort burden, conservativeness, and inequity. Major examples include UKRI responsive-mode grants, NIH R-series, NSF programme grants, and ERC grants.
Competitive vs. non-competitive grant
A non-competitive grant is awarded outside a ranked, peer-reviewed competition against other applicants — through a formula allocation, a congressionally directed or earmarked award, a sole-source justification, or a continuation of an existing award that isn’t re-competed. The distinction matters operationally, not just administratively: a competitive award’s terms, and the level of scrutiny applied to its proposal, generally reflect the fact that it was selected against alternatives on scientific merit, while a non-competitive award’s compliance and reporting obligations are typically judged instead against the specific statutory or programmatic basis that justified skipping open competition.
What “competitive” changes for a research administrator
Beyond the funding mechanism itself, competitive status changes several practical things: application deadlines are typically fixed and non-negotiable, since a late submission can’t be reviewed alongside a closed applicant pool; budget justification, preliminary/pilot data, and overall proposal quality carry disproportionate weight, because reviewers are ranking proposals against each other rather than simply checking eligibility; and a competing renewal (competing continuation) of a multi-year competitive award is scored again from a fresh, current applicant pool rather than simply extended or rolled over — prior funding is not itself a guarantee of continued support.
References
- UKRI peer review principles; US NIH Center for Scientific Review process.
Related: Non-competitive grant · No-cost extension (NCE).
Also known as
Peer-reviewed grant · Open-competition grant
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Competitive grant"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/competitive-grant" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/competitive-grant",
"name": "Competitive grant",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/competitive-grant",
"description": "A funding award made following a peer-reviewed, merit-based competition against other proposals, in which only a subset of applicants are funded.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/funding-finance#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/competitive-grant",
"alternateName": [
"Peer-reviewed grant",
"Open-competition grant"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"author": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:22:58",
"dateModified": "2026-09-05T14:26:46",
"inLanguage": "en-GB",
"isAccessibleForFree": true
}
