Restriction
Can the programme limit what assistance buys and where, and is the rule enforced before value moves?
Compare hub
7Grant compared with the alternatives
Paper vouchers, in-kind distribution, mobile money, prepaid cards, dedicated CVA platforms and open-source DPI each do something well. 7Grant fits when assistance must be restricted to approved categories and merchants, delivered without new apps or hardware, and evidenced per transaction. When a transfer should be unrestricted, or markets are broken, something else fits better.
- Nine comparisons
- Honest trade-offs
- When to choose something else
Last updated
Four questions behind every comparison
The same criteria run through each alternative below, so the differences are comparable.
Reach
What must the beneficiary have: a document, a bank account, a smartphone, an app?
Merchant burden
What hardware, certification or reconciliation does the seller take on?
Evidence
Does the donor get transaction records, or field returns assembled later?
Every alternative, with honest trade-offs
What each option does well, and the situation where it is the better choice than 7Grant.
Paper vouchers
Need no technology but carry printing, logistics, forgery and reconciliation costs.
Choose it
Where no phone, card or terminal is workable at all.
In-kind distribution
The right answer when markets are broken. Where markets function, evidence consistently finds cash-based modalities cheaper to deliver.
Choose it
When local markets cannot supply the goods.
Bulk mobile money
The strongest rail for unrestricted transfers. Once value lands in the wallet, it is unrestricted.
Choose it
When the transfer is meant to be unrestricted.
Prepaid cards
A familiar payment experience, but require issuance, KYC and physical distribution, and cannot hold entitlements in goods.
Choose it
When card issuance already exists and value is in currency.
Red Rose, LMMS and SCOPE
Dedicated CVA platforms cover the full cycle from registration to reconciliation. 7Grant inverts the model.
Choose it
When you need one system for the whole programme cycle.
OpenG2P, OpenSPP and MOSIP
No licence cost and full sovereignty. They do not remove integration, hosting, the payment layer or the merchant network.
Choose it
When you have the team to integrate and run it.
Blockchain for aid
Solves one real problem: shared records between organisations with no single owner. For a single operator's delivery layer it adds cost.
Choose it
When several organisations must share one ledger.
Cash, vouchers or in-kind
Choosing a modality using CALP definitions and the published evidence on cost and risk.
Use it
Start here if the modality is still open.
CVA software options
The systems used to deliver CVA in 2026, what each is built for, and how to run a vendor selection.
Use it
Start here if you are preparing a tender.
FAQ
Questions about the alternatives
Short, direct answers. Each links to the page with the detail.
Is 7Grant a replacement for mobile money?
No. Bulk mobile money is the strongest rail for unrestricted transfers. 7Grant is for assistance that must stay restricted after it reaches the beneficiary, which mobile money cannot do by design.
How is 7Grant different from Red Rose, LMMS or SCOPE?
Dedicated CVA platforms cover the full programme cycle from registration to reconciliation. 7Grant inverts the model: it works on top of an existing registry and existing merchant hardware, and focuses on the delivery layer.
Why not use OpenG2P, OpenSPP or MOSIP?
Open-source DPI has no licence cost and offers full sovereignty. It does not remove integration, hosting, the payment layer or the merchant network, which a programme still has to build or buy.
Do we need blockchain for aid distribution?
Usually not. Blockchain solves shared records between organisations with no single owner. For a single operator's delivery layer it adds cost without solving a problem the operator has.
Next step
Run the comparison against your programme
Bring your requirements and constraints. We will tell you where 7Grant fits, and where it does not.