Chase Miller
CRO & Co-Founder, Impact Applications
Last Updated
May 27, 2026
Decision rule
For most Canadian SMEs: consultant first, in-house later, hybrid forever after. Under $500K/year in approved funding, a consultant is almost always cheaper and faster. Above $1.5M/year in recurring funding with stable program mix, in-house pays for itself. Between those two — and for businesses with variable or one-off needs — a hybrid model wins.
What each option actually is
Grant consultant
An external firm or independent professional who handles grant work on contract. Models include flat-fee per application, monthly retainer, success fee, or hybrid. Most consultants serve multiple clients simultaneously, which gives them program fluency depth that's hard to build internally — but means you're competing for their attention.
In-house grant writer / manager
A full-time employee whose job is grant work. Title varies: Grant Writer (junior, focused on applications), Grant Manager (mid, full lifecycle), Director of Funding (senior, strategy across multiple programs). They report internally, typically to finance or to the CEO depending on company size.
Hybrid
In-house owns strategy, ongoing claims, and recurring programs (especially SR&ED, which is annual and benefits from continuity). A consultant handles peak overflow, specialized programs the in-house team lacks fluency in, audit defence on complex claims, and one-off opportunities like RTRI.
The cost comparison: real numbers
| Consultant | In-House | Hybrid | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (typical SME) | $30K–$80K | $90K–$140K loaded | $120K–$200K |
| Variable vs fixed cost | Variable — scales with work | Fixed — paid regardless of volume | Mostly fixed with variable top-up |
| Program breadth | High — they see many clients | Narrows over time to your needs | High |
| Response speed during peaks | Variable | Limited by 1-person bandwidth | Best — overflow covered |
| Institutional knowledge | External — risk if consultant leaves | Internal — at-risk if employee leaves | Distributed across both |
| Outcomes alignment | Strong with success fee | Weaker (salary is paid regardless) | Mixed |
When a consultant wins outright
- You're under $500K/year in expected approved funding. Math favours variable cost.
- You're new to grants. A consultant accelerates learning and avoids the expensive mistakes a first-time in-house hire will make.
- You need a specific program once — RTRI, AgriInnovate, or a one-off SR&ED audit defence. No reason to build internal capacity for one-off work.
- Your grant strategy is still being defined. Consultants surface programs you didn't know existed; in-house writers tend to specialize narrowly.
When in-house wins
- You're filing 8+ applications per year across consistent program types.
- SR&ED is a large recurring revenue line — internal continuity meaningfully improves narratives year-over-year.
- You're managing post-approval claims and reporting on multiple active grants. Reporting workload often justifies in-house even when application volume doesn't.
- You have predictable, multi-year R&D roadmaps that map cleanly to recurring programs.
- You're past Series B or 100+ employees. At scale, the case for in-house compounds with adjacent value (vendor diversity programs, ESG reporting, government affairs).
When hybrid wins (most companies, eventually)
The hybrid model is the default at any meaningful scale. In-house handles the daily workload — claims, reporting, ongoing communication with program officers, the annual SR&ED filing. The consultant is on call for: surge capacity during application season, programs outside the in-house team's fluency (e.g. a Quebec-administered program when the team is Western-focused), and complex audit defence.
The cost is higher than either alone, but the risk-adjusted output is meaningfully better. Most of Impact Applications' enterprise engagements run alongside an in-house grant manager exactly because the combination outperforms either model alone.
What this means for your business
Most Canadian SMEs go through three stages:
- Stage 1 (under $500K/yr in approved funding): Pure consultant. Build the funding portfolio with external help while keeping fixed costs low.
- Stage 2 ($500K–$1.5M/yr): Hybrid. The recurring SR&ED + IRAP claims justify someone internal; the consultant handles new programs and audits.
- Stage 3 ($1.5M+/yr): Mature in-house grant function with strategic consultant relationships. The in-house team owns the calendar; consultants provide specialist depth.
The mistake to avoid: hiring in-house too early because the cost feels predictable, then running into 4 months without an application that justifies the salary. The opposite mistake: never moving past consultants even at scale, because the institutional knowledge stays external and becomes a single point of failure.