If your institution is evaluating software for conferences, fellowships, or academic program management, you have probably encountered at least one of these names: EasyChair, Oxford Abstracts, or Submittable.
Each of them solves a real problem. Each of them also has significant gaps that institutions discover after they have committed.
This post compares all four platforms — including JustPitch — as honestly as we can. We will tell you what each one does well, where each one falls short, and which type of institution is the right fit for each.
If you are looking for a genuinely useful comparison rather than a vendor pitch, read on.
The Short Version
| EasyChair | Oxford Abstracts | Submittable | JustPitch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | CS and engineering conferences | Academic conferences, abstract management | Grant and fellowship programmes, arts and nonprofits | Institutions running multiple program types end to end |
| Pricing model | Free (basic) / subscription | Per event, USD 790 to 2,970 | Annual subscription, USD 5,000 to 40,000+ | Annual subscription, NZD 25,000 to 98,000 |
| Program types | Conferences only | Conferences only | Grants, fellowships, scholarships, open calls | Conferences, competitions, fellowships, grants, scholarships, accelerators |
| End-to-end lifecycle | Partial | Partial | Partial | Full |
| Payments | No | Limited | Yes | Yes |
| Communications | Basic | Basic | Yes | Yes |
| Audit trail | Partial | Partial | Yes | Yes |
| NZ/AU data hosting | No (EU servers) | No (EU/US servers) | No (US servers) | Roadmap (Auckland/Sydney AWS) |
| Support model | Community / self-serve | Email support | Dedicated support at higher tiers | Dedicated support |
EasyChair
What it is: EasyChair is the closest thing academic conferences have to a default tool, particularly in computer science, engineering, and technical disciplines. It has been around since the early 2000s and has processed millions of paper submissions globally. For many conference chairs, it is simply the tool everyone uses.
What it does well: The peer review workflow is mature and reliable. Programme committee management — assigning papers to reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, collecting scores — works smoothly for technical conferences running the standard double-blind review process. It is free at the basic tier, which matters for conferences with no platform budget.
Where it falls short: EasyChair is designed for one thing: the academic paper submission and review workflow. It does not handle payments. It does not manage fellowships, grants, competitions, or scholarship rounds. It does not have a communications layer for managing participant logistics. The interface is functional but dated — applicants from outside the academic research community often find it confusing. For institutions running diverse program types, EasyChair solves the conference problem and leaves everything else untouched.
Who it is right for: Research-led universities running technical conferences where the programme committee is already familiar with EasyChair and the submission volume justifies the workflow. Not right for institutions looking for a single platform across program types, or for programs with a non-academic applicant audience.
Oxford Abstracts
What it is: Oxford Abstracts is a modern, well-designed platform focused specifically on academic conference abstract submission and management. It is UK-based and widely used across European and Australasian universities for humanities, social science, and interdisciplinary conferences.
What it does well: The submission experience is clean and professional — considerably better than EasyChair for non-technical audiences. Abstract and paper review workflows are well-structured. The platform has good event management features for scheduling and programme building. The interface is polished enough that applicants from outside academia do not feel lost.
Where it falls short: Oxford Abstracts is per-event pricing (USD 790 to 2,970 per event), which adds up quickly for institutions running multiple conferences per year. Like EasyChair, it is built exclusively for conferences — no fellowship management, no competition workflows, no scholarship rounds. Payment processing is limited. Data is hosted on EU and US servers, which creates questions for institutions with data sovereignty requirements.
Who it is right for: Institutions running one or two flagship academic conferences per year with moderate submission volumes and a preference for a polished applicant experience. Not right for institutions running diverse program types, or those who need an annual platform rather than per-event licensing.
Submittable
What it is: Submittable is a US-based platform originally built for literary magazine submissions that has evolved into a broader grant and program management tool. It is widely used by foundations, nonprofits, arts organisations, and some universities for grant cycles, fellowship programmes, scholarship rounds, and open calls.
What it does well: Submittable handles multi-stage application workflows well — screener review, committee review, conditional awards, follow-up requirements. The applicant experience is clean. It has a genuine communications layer, decent reporting, and supports the kind of complex eligibility-based filtering that grant programmes require. For organisations whose primary program type is grants and fellowships, it is a credible option.
Where it falls short: Submittable's pricing starts at USD 5,000 per year and can reach USD 40,000 or more depending on volume — a significant commitment for institutions with limited software budgets. It is built primarily for the US nonprofit and foundation market, and the product reflects that context. Academic conference management is not its strength. Data is hosted on US servers. Customer support quality reportedly varies significantly at lower price tiers.
Who it is right for: Well-resourced foundations, arts organisations, and US-based universities with significant grant and fellowship programmes and budgets to match. Less right for institutions outside the US, institutions running academic conferences, or institutions that need a platform covering multiple program types at a single accessible price point.
JustPitch
What it is: JustPitch is an end-to-end program lifecycle management platform built specifically for educational institutions — universities, polytechnics, and colleges running conferences, competitions, fellowships, grant cycles, scholarships, and accelerator programmes.
What it does well: JustPitch covers the complete program lifecycle across multiple program types — not just conferences, not just grants, but the full range of programs an active institution runs. Submission intake, payments, reviewer assignment and evaluation, communications, and a complete audit trail all live in one platform. The coordinator manages everything from one place; participants experience a clean, professional interface. Annual subscription pricing means no per-event cost surprises as program volume grows.
Where it falls short: JustPitch is newer than the other platforms in this comparison. The institutional reference base is currently concentrated in India, though international expansion is active. NZ and AU data hosting (Auckland or Sydney AWS region) is on the roadmap but not yet live — a relevant consideration for university-level procurement in New Zealand and Australia. Institutions requiring SOC 2 compliance certification should flag this as a roadmap item.
Who it is right for: Institutions running multiple program types per year who want a single platform rather than separate tools for conferences, fellowships, and grants. Institutions where coordinator capacity is a real constraint and operational efficiency is a genuine priority. Institutions in markets where annual subscription pricing is more manageable than per-event licensing.
The Real Comparison: What Are You Actually Buying?
The table and summaries above describe features. But the more useful question is: what problem are you actually trying to solve?
If the problem is one conference per year with a research-focused audience: EasyChair or Oxford Abstracts may be sufficient. The per-event cost is manageable, the workflow is familiar, and the limitations do not matter if you are only running one program type.
If the problem is grant and fellowship management for a well-resourced organisation: Submittable is worth evaluating, with clear eyes about the pricing and US-centric product assumptions.
If the problem is coordinator capacity across multiple program types: None of the first three platforms solve this. EasyChair and Oxford Abstracts handle conferences and nothing else. Submittable handles grants and fellowships but not conferences. You end up with multiple platform subscriptions, multiple coordinator workflows to learn, and no single source of truth for your program portfolio.
This is the gap JustPitch is built for. Not a better conference tool. Not a better grant tool. A single platform for institutions that run programs — plural, across types, throughout the year — and need the operational infrastructure to match.
A Note on Pricing
Comparing pricing across these platforms is genuinely difficult because the models are different.
EasyChair is free at the basic tier but limited; paid tiers add features for larger programmes.
Oxford Abstracts charges per event — USD 790 to 2,970 depending on submission volume and features. An institution running four conferences per year spends USD 3,000 to 12,000 annually without a single fellowship or competition on the list.
Submittable charges an annual subscription starting around USD 5,000 and scaling significantly with volume and features.
JustPitch charges an annual subscription starting at NZD 25,000 for the Starter tier, covering unlimited programs across all program types.
The comparison that matters is total annual cost against total program coverage. An institution running three conferences, one fellowship, and one scholarship round annually — and covering each with a separate tool — is likely already spending more than a JustPitch annual subscription, in software costs alone. Before counting the coordinator hours that each additional tool adds to the coordination stack.
The Question Worth Asking Before You Decide
Before committing to any platform, ask the programme management team one question: how many different tools are you currently using to run your programs, and how many hours per program do those tools cost you?
The answer is usually more than anyone expected. And the follow-up question — what would it be worth to replace all of them with one platform? — often clarifies the decision faster than any feature comparison.
JustPitch is live with institutions across India and expanding internationally. If you would like to see the platform across your specific program types, request a demo at justpitch.in.