New webinar on 3rd March 2026 | 9:00 am PT
In this webinar, discover how Sopact Sense revolutionizes data collection and analysis.
Tactiv Enquire excels at grants administration. Sopact Sense adds AI analysis of grantee narratives, longitudinal tracking, and real-time insight.
Tactiv Enquire is the right choice if your organization manages government grant disbursement, needs payment acquittal workflows, requires ISO 27001 compliance for public procurement, or runs multi-program portfolios with financial milestones as the primary output. MFAT manages $6B in aid through Enquire. That is real enterprise-grade evidence.
Sopact Sense is the right choice if your primary question is not 'did the grantee submit their milestone report?' but 'what does the data from 50 grantee narratives actually tell us about what is and is not working?' The two platforms solve different problems. The most honest answer to 'which is better?' is that they are not competing to be the same thing.
Organizations that need both — outcome intelligence AND grant administration — should evaluate whether Sopact's MCP connectivity to their existing financial systems is sufficient, or whether a purpose-built lifecycle platform better fits their starting conditions.
Tactiv built Enquire around a specific, hard problem: managing the complete lifecycle of grant funding from the moment an application is received to the moment the final acquittal report is accepted and the file is closed. This is not a simple workflow. It involves legal contracts, payment schedules, compliance milestones, audit requirements, and the coordination of dozens of human reviewers across complex organizational hierarchies.
Enquire manages inflows and outflows of grant funds with the fidelity that government agencies require. Payment schedules are configured against milestones. Acquittal workflows are designed for public accountability. When MFAT needs to track $6 billion across 20+ international offices, it is using Enquire because the platform was purpose-built for exactly this governance problem.
From the moment a grant is awarded, Enquire generates contracts from configurable templates, manages digital signature workflows, and stores every document with a full audit trail. One-click contract generation with pre-populated data fields is the kind of operational efficiency that program officers managing high volumes of smaller grants depend on daily.
ISO 27001 certification, multi-factor authentication, role-based user access, and fully auditable system logs are not features that Enquire added as afterthoughts. They are foundational to who the platform serves: government agencies and publicly accountable organizations where data sovereignty and audit requirements are non-negotiable purchasing criteria.
Panel management — assigning reviewers, structuring assessment scoring, coordinating multi-person decisions on applications — is purpose-built. The client portal allows applicants to submit, check status, and respond to information requests without the friction of back-and-forth email.
For government agencies that need to visualize community-level impact geographically, Enquire's native geo-location mapping in reports is a genuine capability. Portfolio-level rollup reporting across multiple programs and funding rounds gives executive stakeholders the cross-program visibility that individual program reports cannot.
The architectural decision that makes Enquire strong for grant administration is the same decision that creates its ceiling for impact intelligence: the platform is organized around grants, not participants. Data flows through the lifecycle of a funding round. Humans review everything at every stage. Reporting is scheduled and compliance-driven.
This is not a criticism. It is a design choice that reflects the original problem Enquire was built to solve. The ceiling appears when organizations' questions shift from administrative tracking to intelligence generation.
When a foundation receives 200 applications to a grant round, each containing a 10-page narrative describing the applicant's approach, theory of change, and evidence base, someone on the program team reads all 200 of them. Enquire routes, assigns, and tracks that review process efficiently. It does not read the applications. There is no AI pre-scoring that extracts key themes, flags strong conceptual alignments, or identifies weak evidence bases before a human reviewer opens the file.
Sopact's Intelligent Cell pre-scores narratives against configurable rubrics before any human assignment. The result is not that humans are removed from the decision — it is that by the time a reviewer opens an application, the AI has already surfaced the most relevant signals. Reviewer time compresses by 80% or more on the pre-read phase.
Every grantee's quarterly narrative report flows into Enquire as a submission on record. The quantitative KPIs aggregate into dashboards. The qualitative narrative — the story of what actually happened, what changed, what the community experienced — sits in the system unprocessed.
Processing 50 quarterly narratives to understand cross-portfolio themes requires exporting to external tools, manually coding themes, or simply not doing it at all. The 80% cleanup problem — where organizations spend most of their evaluation time on data reconciliation and manual analysis rather than insight generation — is not a problem Enquire was designed to solve.
If an individual participates in a foundation's employment program in Year 1, a housing stability program in Year 2, and a financial literacy workshop in Year 3, Enquire has three separate records. The longitudinal story of that participant's journey requires manual reconciliation across programs. The insight — that participants who completed the employment program first had better housing stability outcomes three years later — is invisible inside an administrative platform.
Sopact's Contacts system assigns a persistent unique ID at first contact. Every subsequent touchpoint links to the same record automatically. Longitudinal outcome measurement is architectural, not a post-hoc reconciliation exercise.
Enquire generates reports on schedule: quarterly milestone summaries, annual acquittal reports, end-of-round portfolio reviews. This is exactly what accountability to funders and government oversight bodies requires. It is not the same as continuous insight. A program officer who wants to know today — not at the next reporting milestone — whether a pattern is emerging across recent survey responses cannot get that from Enquire. The platform is not designed for continuous data-driven decision-making; it is designed for structured compliance reporting.
The clearest way to explain the difference between these two platforms is not to compare feature lists. It is to ask: what is the system organized around?
Tactiv Enquire is organized around grants. A grant is the central object: it has an application stage, an assessment stage, a contract, milestones, payments, and an acquittal. People are applicants or recipients. Data belongs to a funding round. Reports close out a cycle.
Sopact Sense is organized around participants and data. A participant is the central object: they have a record that persists across every program, survey, and interaction. Data is collected clean at source, meaning no downstream deduplication or reconciliation. AI analysis runs continuously on qualitative and quantitative data together. Reports are live outputs, not periodic summaries.
Traditional evaluation creates what practitioners call the 80% cleanup problem: organizations spend roughly 80% of their evaluation time cleaning, reconciling, and formatting data before they can begin to analyze it. This is not a failure of effort — it is a structural consequence of collecting data in ways that were not designed for analysis.
Sopact's clean-at-source architecture addresses this structurally rather than symptomatically. Data enters through forms designed to prevent inconsistency. Persistent unique IDs eliminate the most common source of fragmentation — the same person appearing as multiple records across programs. By the time an analyst opens a dataset, it is already clean.
One of the most common misreadings of Sopact's architecture is treating MCP connectivity as a gap — 'Sopact doesn't do contracts, so you'd need to integrate something.' The more accurate framing is that Sopact's MCP-native design reflects a deliberate architectural position: organizations already have financial systems, HR systems, and document management workflows. Sopact connects to them rather than replicating them inside a new platform.
The result is that contract workflows happen in your contract system. Payment schedules happen in your financial system. Sopact provides the intelligence layer that reads data from these systems, analyzes it continuously, and generates insight. For organizations with existing infrastructure, this is a strength. For organizations starting from zero that need everything in one place on day one, Enquire's all-in-one design is simpler to start.
The table below scores capabilities across both platforms — including areas where Tactiv leads. Three categories appear across the AI, data architecture, and administration dimensions. Scores use four values: native/core, available via integration, competitor leads, and not available.
Choose Tactiv Enquire if your organization fits one or more of these descriptions:
The MFAT case — $6 billion in aid, 20+ international offices, decades of program history — is a legitimate signal that Enquire can handle government-scale grant administration. If that is your primary problem, it is the right tool.
Choose Sopact Sense if your organization fits one or more of these descriptions:
Sopact Sense was designed for organizations where the bottleneck is not workflow routing but insight generation — where data exists, analysis does not, and the gap costs real program decision-making quality.
A foundation receiving quarterly narrative reports from 50 grantees has a data problem that is invisible in most grant management platforms: the qualitative story of what is actually happening in each program sits in submission records, unanalyzed at portfolio scale.
In Tactiv Enquire, the quantitative KPIs aggregate across the portfolio efficiently. The narrative reports are stored and accessible. What Enquire does not do is read them — extracting cross-portfolio themes, flagging which grantees are describing the same structural barrier, or identifying which interventions are generating the most compelling evidence of change.
In Sopact Sense, Intelligent Column processes all 50 narratives simultaneously. The output is not a summary of each report — it is a cross-portfolio analysis: the top five themes appearing across grantee narratives this quarter, the three grantees whose reports suggest emerging capacity gaps, and which programs are consistently generating strong qualitative evidence of participant change.
If the foundation also needs to manage payment acquittal for those 50 grantees, the right architecture is Sopact for intelligence plus a financial system connected via MCP — not one platform that does both at the expense of either.
A workforce development organization running six-month cohorts faces a tracking problem that grant administration tools are not designed to solve. Participants enroll in intake → complete mid-program check-ins → exit with a post-program survey → return for a six-month follow-up. Each of these touchpoints lives in a separate record unless the platform is architected to link them.
Sopact's Contacts system assigns a unique ID at intake. Every subsequent touchpoint links automatically. By the time a program evaluator runs a cohort analysis, they are not reconciling four separate spreadsheets — they are running pre/post outcome calculations across a clean longitudinal dataset. Intelligent Column processes open-ended responses from all cohort members simultaneously, surfacing the themes that quantitative surveys miss.
A government department administering a public grants program has requirements that go beyond outcome measurement: public accountability, legal compliance, financial governance, and citizen-facing transparency. Tactiv Enquire is purpose-built for this context. The ISO 27001 certification, audit trails, payment acquittal, and portfolio-program-project hierarchy are not incidental features — they are the core value proposition.
This is a case where Sopact is not the right primary platform. If the agency also wants AI analysis of acquittal report narratives or cross-program outcome intelligence, Sopact could connect as an intelligence layer through MCP. But Enquire should manage the administrative workflow.
An impact investor with 30 investees receiving annual impact reports has a portfolio intelligence problem: 30 documents, each describing a different intervention, different population, different geography. Synthesizing them into a coherent portfolio narrative takes weeks of manual work or results in annual reports that aggregate numbers without illuminating what is actually happening.
Sopact's Intelligent Cell processes all 30 reports simultaneously. Intelligent Grid generates a portfolio narrative: which interventions are producing the strongest qualitative evidence of change, which investees are describing similar systemic barriers, and what the portfolio as a whole is telling you that your individual KPI reports cannot.
Tactiv Enquire is a grant administration platform that manages the complete financial and compliance lifecycle of grant funding — from application through contract to payment acquittal. Sopact Sense is an AI-native stakeholder intelligence platform that processes qualitative and quantitative data to generate insight continuously. Enquire is designed for organizations that primarily need workflow governance; Sopact is designed for organizations that primarily need to understand what their data is telling them.
For foundations and nonprofits whose primary challenge is qualitative data analysis — understanding grantee narratives, measuring participant outcomes across cohorts, and generating portfolio-level intelligence — Sopact Sense is a strong alternative. For organizations that primarily need payment disbursement, contract management, and ISO 27001 compliance workflows, Tactiv Enquire is the more appropriate platform.
No. Tactiv Enquire does not include AI-powered analysis of open-ended text, narratives, or qualitative data. The platform's intelligence features are configurable dashboards, scheduled reporting, and workflow automation — which are process automation tools, not AI analysis. Qualitative narratives submitted through Enquire are stored and accessible but require manual reading or export to external tools for thematic analysis.
Tactiv Enquire collects grantee reports as submissions and stores them in the system. Automated analysis of the narrative content — theme extraction, sentiment analysis, risk flagging — is not a capability Enquire provides. Sopact's Intelligent Column processes narrative content using LLM-based analysis, enabling foundations to understand what 50 grantee reports are collectively saying without reading each one individually.
Sopact Sense is the stronger choice for workforce development program evaluation, specifically because of its persistent unique ID architecture and longitudinal tracking. Linking participant outcomes across intake, mid-program, post-program, and follow-up stages happens automatically in Sopact. Tactiv Enquire is not designed for participant journey tracking across program stages — its data model is organized around grants and funding rounds, not individual participant records.
MCP (Model Context Protocol) is the architecture that allows AI systems to connect to external data sources and tools. Sopact being MCP-native means it can connect to an organization's existing financial system, HR system, contract management tool, or grant database and analyze data across all of them without requiring manual export or data migration. The practical result is that organizations do not need to replace their existing systems with Sopact — they connect Sopact as an intelligence layer on top of the infrastructure they already have.
Tactiv Enquire uses custom enterprise subscription pricing — quotes are not publicly listed and are positioned for government and larger organizational buyers. Sopact Sense is designed to be accessible for mid-market nonprofits, foundations, and accelerators that need enterprise-quality intelligence without enterprise-scale pricing. Both platforms offer demos; direct comparison requires speaking with both sales teams for your specific use case and scale.
These platforms do not overlap in their primary functions, so 'switching' is not quite the right framing. If an organization is using Enquire primarily for grant administration and is considering adding Sopact for impact intelligence, the most common architecture is additive rather than replacement — Sopact connects via MCP to existing data sources and runs in parallel. If an organization is using Enquire for outcome reporting and wants AI-native analysis, migration of historical survey and participant data into Sopact is feasible with standard data export workflows.
Sopact was designed with AI as a core architectural component, not added to a pre-existing platform. The Intelligent Suite — Cell, Row, Column, Grid — each represents a distinct layer of AI analysis built into the data architecture from the ground up. This is meaningfully different from platforms that added AI features to legacy workflow systems, where AI is a module on top of existing infrastructure rather than the foundation the platform is built on.
Grant administration manages the flow of money, contracts, and compliance documentation through a funding lifecycle — applications, assessments, contracts, payments, acquittal. Impact intelligence analyzes data from the programs those grants fund — participant outcomes, qualitative narratives, pre/post change, cross-portfolio patterns. Organizations need both, but they are distinct problems. Tactiv Enquire solves the first problem. Sopact Sense solves the second. The question is which problem is currently costing your organization the most.
