This article covers:
Like all things the right tools for the job, very much depend on the job. In this article we’ll investigate the differences between Evalato and Zealous to allow you to make the best possible decision for your own need.
(Very) Brief Overview
If you’re researching Evalato, you’re probably running awards, competitions, or grants and wondering whether there’s a better fit for your specific needs.
Evalato includes score normalization and multilingual programmes support, and is well suited to European organisations
Zealous approaches awards management differently. The platform was built specifically for programmes where seeing and experiencing submissions matters – art prizes, photography awards, design competitions, film festivals, scholarships with video essays, social impact awards with documentary evidence. A visual presentation that treats evaluation as an engaging experience rather than just data processing.
Zealous serves programmes prioritising visual storytelling, flexible pricing, and multi-programme efficiency.
This article will helps you understand where each platform genuinely fits based on your programme type and budget.
Quick Comparison
| What Matters | Evalato | Zealous | Best Fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Starting Price | €1,900/year (50 entries) | £39/month (75 entries) | Zealous for seasonal pricing |
| How They Count Entries | All registrations (drafts included) | Completed entries only | Zealous for true capacity |
| Multiple Programmes | cost per programme | covers multiple programmes | Zealous for multi-programmes |
| Visual Presentation | Form-focused | Gallery-first | Zealous for storytelling |
| Max File Size | 20MB | 4GB | Zealous for file size |
| Score Normalization | Yes (Z-score) | No | Evalato for high-stakes fairness |
| Languages | 40+ | English-focused | Evalato for multi-languages |
| Contract | Annual | Monthly or annual | Zealous for flexibility |
| API | Zapier | Zapier & Webhooks | Zealous for integrations |
| VAT Included | No (add 20-27%) | Yes | Zealous for transparency |
The Fundamental Difference
Evalato provides a sophisticated spreadsheet for managing application data and scores. Zealous provides a beautifully curated gallery for viewing creative work, personal stories, and candidate profiles.
Your decision hinges on whether absolute statistical fairness and broad judging options are more important than rich visual storytelling.
What Zealous Does Differently
Zealous was built specifically for programmes where seeing and experiencing submissions matters as much as reading about them – whether that’s creative work, personal stories, or candidate profiles.
The gallery experience
For applicants, submissions feel like building a compelling narrative rather than filling administrative forms. Gallery-style interfaces, auto-save functionality, and the ability to preview exactly how judges will view their work reduces friction and dropout.
Whether you’re submitting a photography portfolio, a personal impact video, an interview recording, or a visual case study, you can present your story properly without fighting file size restrictions or clunky forms. Completion rates improve and you get better quality submissions.
For judges, the gallery-first interface transforms evaluation from administrative task to engaging review experience. Browse submissions as thumbnails, click to view full-screen, watch interview videos inline, scroll through photo series showing community impact – no downloading files, no switching between tabs, no zip file naming confusion.
When reviewing 200 applications, this interface difference significantly reduces cognitive load. Judges complete scoring faster and provide more thoughtful feedback because they’re engaging with real people and stories, not fighting software.
File handling that doesn’t compromise quality
Files up to 4GB each with unlimited storage mean video submissions, high-resolution portfolios, and comprehensive documentation work without compression (although Zealous will losslessly compress them to reduce its carbon footprint). When Evalato caps files at 20MB, applicants must destroy quality to meet limits.
Your social entrepreneur compresses their 10-minute community impact video from 1080p to unwatchable quality. Your scholarship candidate reduces their interview recording so judges hear artifacts instead of answers. Your designer compresses portfolio images so judges can’t see the work properly. These compromises undermine the entire purpose – whether you’re celebrating creative excellence, selecting scholarship recipients, or evaluating social impact.
With 4GB limits, applicants showcase their full story. Judges see and hear what they’re meant to experience.
Pricing that matches how awards work
Most creative programmes run seasonally – applications open for 3-5 months, then close while you judge, announce winners, and prepare for next year. Paying for 12 months when you need 4 makes no sense.
Monthly billing at ÂŁ39 means you pay only while actively managing submissions. Run awards from February through May? Pay for four months (ÂŁ156 total). No idle months, no annual commitment you’re not using.
One subscription covers unlimited programmes. Run regional awards, category competitions, and emerging talent programmes without multiplying costs. Zealous counts total entries across everything, not per programme.
Counting only completed entries means your advertised capacity delivers actual capacity. If candidates start applications but don’t finish, no charge. If a candidate drops out, the credit releases immediately.
Trade-offs worth knowing
Zealous doesn’t offer 40+ language translations or score normalization.
The platform focuses on English-language programmes and invests in user experience rather than statistical sophistication.
For truly multilingual programmes or those requiring mathematical judging fairness, different tools serve better.
Download launch checklist
Never miss a critical step: 300+ tasks across 8 phases, from securing judges to winner announcement.
What Evalato does well
Score normalization uses Z-score methodology to standardize judges’ scoring patterns. When Judge A averages 75/100 (generous) and Judge B averages 55/100 (critical), entries evaluated by different judges aren’t fairly comparable.
Score normalization mathematically adjusts for this, ensuring every entry is judged on the same standard regardless of which judges reviewed it.
This matters for academic grants with financial stakes, industry awards requiring provable objectivity, or competitions where judging bias could be challenged. It’s genuine statistical sophistication worth paying for when fairness is paramount and you have fragmented judging needs (where judges don’t score all entries).
About Multilingual Support
If language support is mission-critical, Award Force is actually the market leader with stronger international infrastructure, enterprise-grade support, and deeper multilingual expertise. Consider Evalato when you need score normalization plus some language support, not when multilingual is the primary driver.
Six voting types including Single Transferable Vote give evaluation flexibility. STV with vote redistribution serves complex academic selections or elections. Most creative programmes use straightforward scoring, but the breadth demonstrates platform depth.
Virtual events and community management extend beyond basic awards. Organisations running conferences alongside competitions or managing ongoing communities benefit from unified infrastructure.
Real cost examples
Numbers matter more than abstract comparisons. To help highlight pricing
Smaller Award (Seasonal, 50 Entries)
Running 6 months annually, testing programme viability.
Evalato: €1,900 + 20% VAT = €2,280 (£1,940 approx depending on exchange rate), paid upfront annually
Zealous: ÂŁ39 Ă— 6 months = ÂŁ236, test free before paying
Zealous does take 2.2% + 20p (max ÂŁ5) on any transaction. If you take a ÂŁ25 for each entry that would set you back 75p on each entry (adding ÂŁ37 to your total costs)
Difference: Evalato requires ÂŁ1,940, Zealous would only be ÂŁ271 with all fees added.
For emerging programmes testing viability, this difference is program-ending. ÂŁ271 is a budget line item. ÂŁ1,940 is a board discussion.
Awards with multiple programmes per year (600 entries in total)
Each programme runs 8 months
Evalato: Requires a subscription per programme – 3 Ă— €3,900 (200-entry tier) = €11,700 + 20% VAT = €14,040 (ÂŁ12,267 approx depending on exchange rate), paid upfront annually
Zealous: One annual subscription for 1,000 entries, ÂŁ2,352 inc. VAT
Difference: Evalato costs ÂŁ10,000 more on subscriptions alone
Zealous does take 2.2% + 20p (max ÂŁ5) on any transaction. If you take a ÂŁ75 for each entry that would set you back ÂŁ1.85 on each transaction (adding ÂŁ1,110 to your total costs). Even with this considered Zealous is more cost efficient in this instance.
Large International Award (2,000 entries)
Year-round programme, significant scale, multiple categories.
Evalato: €4,900 + 20% VAT = €5,880 (£5,138), paid upfront annually
Zealous: ÂŁ3,444 inc. VAT, paid upfront annually
Difference: Evalato costs ~ÂŁ1,700 more annually
At scale, even year-round programmes see substantial savings. For organisations running at this volume, the ÂŁ1,700+ difference funds additional staff time, marketing, or prize money.
However, if you were to take very large submission fees, Evalato could be more cost efficient in some scenarios.
Want more articles like this?
Give this one a like
Questions worth asking of any platform
Before committing to any contract, with any platform it’s worth asking yourself the following questions:
About pricing:
- Is this per programme or across all programmes?
- Do prices include VAT/applicable taxes?
- What counts as a submission – registrations or completed entries?
- Can I pause between programme cycles?
- Can I upgrade at any time?
About capacity:
- If someone starts but doesn’t complete, does it consume capacity?
- What happens if I hit my limit mid-programme?
- Do entries removed by candidates release credits?
About your programme type:
- Should candidates show the richness of their story (portfolios, videos, photos, recordings) or just data?
- Do I need mathematical judging fairness with verifiable methodology?
- Is multilingual support mission-critical or just helpful? (remember your judges need to be speaking all those languages!).
- Am I running multiple programmes this year?
- Is this seasonal (4-6 months) or year-round?
When Evalato makes sense
Evalato serves a subset of organisations well, especially if you are based in Europe where their costs will not fluctuate based on currency movements.
If score normalization matters critically – academic grants with financial stakes, industry awards requiring provable objectivity, competitions where judging bias could be challenged – the Z-score implementation delivers value.
Year-round programmes with proven budgets and needs matching Evalato’s strengths won’t find the pricing shocking.
However, if you’re considering Evalato primarily for enterprise-level features or multilingual support, Award Force offers deeper functionality at similar price points with stronger implementation support and proven enterprise infrastructure. Worth exploring both before committing to enterprise-level investment.
When Zealous makes more sense
Programmes Built on Visual Storytelling
Any programme where seeing and experiencing submissions drives decisions benefit enormously from gallery-first presentation (art prizes, photography awards, design competitions, film festivals, scholarships with video essays, social impact awards with documentary evidence, fellowship applications with interview recordings…)
When judges can review work in a visually optimized environment, they engage more deeply with what applicants are actually trying to communicate. A scholarship candidate’s 5-minute personal statement video. A social entrepreneur’s photo series showing community impact. A designer’s portfolio demonstrating process. An emerging leader’s interview recording. These aren’t just “files to download”, they’re the soul of the application.
The platform treats applications as opportunities to tell compelling stories rather than complete administrative checkboxes. The application process becomes a digital showcase of the applicant’s qualifications, impact, or creative work. Superior visual presentation reduces friction for candidates, which translates directly into higher completion rates and better quality submissions.
Seasonal programmes
Programmes running a few months annually benefit enormously from monthly billing. £156 for four months costs dramatically less than €1,900 annual commitments requiring 12-month payment for 4-month use.
Multiple awards programmes
Organisations running multiple awards programmes across the year benefit from cross-programme entry counting.
Two programmes, three programmes, sixty programmes – one subscription covers everything. The per-programme pricing used by Evalato multiplies costs quickly.
Budget-conscious organisations
Emerging programmes testing viability, small nonprofits, and organisations needing lower entry barriers benefit from ÂŁ39 monthly starting costs with unlimited testing before committing.
Significant File Handling Needs
Programmes accepting video submissions, high-resolution portfolios, interview recordings, or comprehensive impact documentation benefit from 4GB limits and unlimited storage. When candidates need to show rather than just tell – whether that’s creative work, personal stories, community impact, or professional experience. 20MB limits force quality-destroying compromises.
Custom Integration Requirements
Evalato and Zealous both allow access to Zapier through their more expensive packages. Zealous has a slight edge in allowing you to capture webhooks in your own systems by-passing the additional cost of using Zapier.
Evalato’s comparison & correcting the record
Evalato published their own comparison of Evalato vs Zealous. We’re linking to it for transparency. Seeing both perspectives helps.
However, their comparison contains specific inaccuracies worth correcting.
Features they list as “Evalato only” that Zealous actually has:
| Evalato Claim | Reality |
|---|---|
| Programme templates | Zealous has templates (awards, competitions, grants, residencies) |
| One-click programme clone | Zealous clones programmes with all settings preserved |
| Unlimited free testing | Zealous offers completely unlimited testing without credit card |
| Unlimited forms & fields | Zealous includes unlimited custom fields on all plans |
| Enhanced category/group structure | Zealous has category and grouping capabilities |
About voting methods:
They emphasize Points voting, Ranked voting, STV, Simple review, and Popularity voting as exclusive features. Most of these achieve the same outcomes as Zealous’s customizable scoring – just different implementations.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is genuinely different – it requires preference ballots with vote redistribution, useful for complex elections or academic selections. Most programmes use straightforward scoring, which Zealous handles well.
The Real Differentiator
Score normalization (Z-score method) is what Evalato genuinely offers that Zealous doesn’t. That’s the meaningful technical difference worth considering, not the feature labels or interface terminology.
Our recommendation:
Test both platforms with your programme. Build forms, invite colleagues to submit mock entries, run a judging round. See which interface your judges prefer and which workflow fits your team. That matters more than any comparison article (including this one).
Insights like these straight to your inbox
Receive weekly tips from our founder to grow your program’s impact; regardless of what tools you use.
Making Your Decision
Neither platform is universally better. They serve fundamentally different needs.
Choose Evalato when:
- Mathematical judging fairness (Z-score normalization) is non-negotiable
- You’re running year-round programmes with proven budgets
- Virtual events capabilities need tight integration with awards
- Multilingual support is mission-critical (not just helpful)
- Budget supports the necessary added funcationality
Choose Zealous when:
- Visual storytelling drives your programme (art, photography, design, film, video essays, interview recordings, impact documentation)
- Candidates need to show rather than just tell their story
- You’re running seasonal programmes (4-6 months annually)
- You manage multiple programmes that could share infrastructure
- You want to be kinder to your budget
- File handling needs exceed 20MB limits
- Webhooks allow for the removal of Zapier costs
Ask yourself:
- Do candidates need to show their story visually? (creative work, videos, photos, recordings) → Zealous
- Is my programme primarily text/data-driven? → Either platform works
- Do I need mathematically verifiable judging fairness? → Evalato
- Is multilingual support mission-critical? → Award Force
- Am I running multiple programmes? → Zealous
- Is this seasonal or year-round? → Zealous for seasonal
- What’s my realistic budget? → Match investment to programme scale
The platform matching your specific situation while treating you fairly wins. Use it to celebrate exceptional work and build community – which is why you’re running awards in the first place!
We can help!
Zealous makes running programmes a pleasure
But we’re not alone in the space – here are 8 others you may wish to consider (even if we would prefer you choose us!).
Want us to write more content like this? Give it a like
Share
Guy Armitage is the founder of Zealous and author of “Everyone is Creative“. He is on a mission to amplify the world’s creative potential.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is Evalato more expensive than some alternatives?
Evalato’s pricing reflects enterprise-level features like 40+ language support, score normalization, multiple voting types, and platform breadth including virtual events.
The €1,900 entry point targets established organisations with proven budgets rather than emerging programmes or cost-conscious nonprofits. Per-programme pricing and annual contracts add cost layers for certain programme types.
Whether this delivers proportionate value depends entirely on whether you need those specific features. For truly multilingual programmes with sophisticated judging requirements and matching budgets, the investment makes sense.
For straightforward English-language seasonal awards, other options deliver better value. The question isn’t whether Evalato is expensive absolutely – it’s whether cost matches your specific requirements.
How can I tell if a platform is actively developing?
Check multiple indicators: blog frequency, public roadmap availability, deployed updates pages, and release note frequency. Active platforms publish roadmaps openly, ship updates regularly, and demonstrate ongoing investment. Look for specific feature announcements within the past 3-6 months rather than vague “we’re constantly improving” statements. Check product changelog or “what’s new” pages showing actual shipped features with dates. User review sites often mention whether platforms feel current or outdated. Active development matters because user expectations evolve, technology advances, and competitors innovate. Platforms excellent three years ago but not evolving become outdated regardless of past quality.
What is the main difference between Evalato and Zealous?
Evalato provides a sophisticated spreadsheet for managing application data and scores, with features like Z-score normalization and 40+ language support. It’s well-suited for European organisations running year-round programmes requiring mathematical judging fairness.
Zealous provides a gallery-first interface for viewing creative work, personal stories, and candidate profiles. It’s built for programmes where visual storytelling matters—art prizes, photography awards, film festivals, scholarships with video essays, and social impact awards with documentary evidence.
Your decision hinges on whether absolute statistical fairness and broad judging options are more important than rich visual storytelling and flexible pricing.
How much does Evalato cost compared to Zealous?
For a small seasonal award (50 entries, 6 months):
- Evalato: €2,280 (£1,940) paid upfront annually
- Zealous: ÂŁ234 for 6 months + transaction fees if applicable
For multiple programmes (600 entries total):
- Evalato: €14,040 (£12,267) requiring separate subscriptions per programme
- Zealous: ÂŁ2,352 annual subscription covering all programmes + transaction fees
For large awards (2,000 entries):
- Evalato: €5,880 (£5,138) annually
- Zealous: ÂŁ3,444 annually
Zealous charges 2.2% + 20p (max ÂŁ5) on transactions if you collect entry fees through the platform. Evalato’s pricing can fluctuate with currency movements for UK organisations.
Does Zealous or Evalato handle large video files better?
Zealous handles large files significantly better with 4GB file size limits and unlimited storage. Files are losslessly compressed to reduce carbon footprint while maintaining quality.
Evalato caps files at 20MB, which forces applicants to compress videos, portfolios, and documentation—often destroying quality in the process. A 10-minute 1080p video or high-resolution portfolio typically exceeds 20MB, requiring applicants to compress their work to unwatchable or unprofessional quality.
For programmes accepting video submissions, interview recordings, or high-resolution portfolios, Zealous’s 4GB limit means judges see and hear submissions as intended.
What is score normalization and do I need it?
Score normalization (Z-score methodology) mathematically adjusts for judges who score consistently high or low. When Judge A averages 75/100 and Judge B averages 55/100, raw scores aren’t comparable—normalization standardizes them.
You need score normalization when:
- Running academic grants with financial stakes requiring provable fairness
- Managing industry awards where objectivity could be challenged legally
- Using different judge panels reviewing different entries
- Mathematical verification matters to stakeholders
You likely don’t need it when:
- All judges review all entries together
- Running creative programmes where subjective evaluation is expected
- Budget constraints outweigh perfect statistical fairness
Evalato offers Z-score normalization; Zealous does not. For most creative programmes where judges review entries together, straightforward scoring works naturally.
Can I run multiple awards programmes with one subscription?
Zealous: Yes. One subscription covers unlimited programmes. Total entries across all programmes determine your tier. Running three programmes with 200 total entries costs ÂŁ2,352 annually.
Evalato: No. Each programme requires a separate subscription. Three programmes with 200 total entries costs €14,040 (£12,267) annually—you need three separate 200-entry subscriptions.
For organisations running regional awards, category competitions, and emerging talent programmes, this structural difference represents thousands in annual savings. The example above shows ÂŁ9,915 difference for the same total capacity.
Is Zealous or Evalato better for seasonal awards programmes?
Zealous is significantly better for seasonal programmes due to monthly billing. If your awards run 4-6 months annually, you only pay for active months.
Example: 6-month programme, 50 entries
- Zealous: ÂŁ234 (6 months Ă— ÂŁ39)
- Evalato: ÂŁ1,940 (full year payment required)
Zealous lets you pause between cycles without penalty. Most creative programmes run seasonally—applications open for 3-5 months, then close while judging and preparing for next year. Paying for 12 months when you need 4-6 doesn’t make financial sense.
For year-round programmes with proven budgets, Evalato’s annual pricing is less of a disadvantage.
Does Evalato or Zealous support multiple languages?
Evalato supports 40+ languages, making it suitable for European and international organisations needing multilingual programme interfaces.
Zealous focuses on English-language programmes.
However, if multilingual support is mission-critical, Award Force is actually the market leader with stronger international infrastructure, enterprise-grade support, and deeper multilingual expertise across 30+ languages. They specialize in international programmes with certified compliance and implementation consultants.
Consider Evalato when you need score normalization plus some language support. Choose Award Force when multilingual capability is the primary driver with budget supporting enterprise investment.
What happens to my subscription costs if someone starts an application but doesn’t submit?
Zealous: Draft applications don’t consume capacity. Only completed, submitted entries count. If candidates start but don’t finish, no charge. If a candidate drops out, the credit releases immediately. Your advertised capacity delivers actual capacity.
Evalato: All registrations count toward capacity regardless of status (draft, pending, submitted, rejected). If 100 people start applications but only 65 complete them, you’ve hit your 100-registration limit but received only 65 actual submissions.
For programmes with high browse-to-submit ratios (common when requirements are substantial), this counting difference significantly affects usable capacity.
