Research & Evaluation Methodology
How we calculate program complexity, eligibility matching, and benefit ratings for public funding programs.
Evaluating Funding Moats
With thousands of public programs across federal, provincial, and state departments, comparing funding options can be challenging. FSI Digital applies a standard, quantitative evaluation index to every cataloged program to assist companies in prioritizing non-dilutive resources.
Core Rating Dimensions
1. Application Difficulty Rating
We assign each program a difficulty category to indicate the operational resources required to apply and report back:
Low Barrier
Requires basic corporate data, online form-filling, and minimal supporting documentation. Typical review period < 30 days (e.g. CDAP, standard hiring vouchers).
Structured Plan
Requires a detailed project outline, budget details, matching cash verification, and historical financial logs. Typical review: 30–90 days (e.g. CanExport, basic provincial grants).
High Compliance
Requires deep technical proposals, academic/commercial review, audited financial declarations, and rigorous post-grant tracking. Typical review: 90+ days (e.g. IRAP, SIF, NIH).
2. Financial Utility Scoring
We assess the quality of the financial benefit. Non-repayable grants receive the highest scoring, followed by tax credits (cash refunds or offsets), and lastly low-interest loans. We also evaluate the match ratio (e.g., 50% vs 80% funding matching) to help founders calculate cash flow leverage.
3. Compliance & Retrospective Risks
For tax credits (such as Canada's SR&ED), we rate programs based on retroactivity rules and audit rates. Our guides highlight standard eligibility parameters (e.g., qualifying technical advances and technological uncertainties) to help companies evaluate compliance before filing.
Review Cadence & Data Auditing
Government funding parameters are not static. Program parameters are audited and updated as follows:
- Weekly Monitoring: Automated scrapers and analyst alerts flag changes in intake status, deadline schedules, and budget allocations.
- Quarterly Reconciliation: Active programs are reviewed end-to-end to verify that contact details, funding limits, and application templates match current ministerial guidance.
- Direct Feedback Loops: We analyze user inquiries and feedback to identify sections where eligibility rules or application interfaces have changed in practice.