Research Allowance Consultants Compared: 7 Providers 2026

Providers at a Glance (as of July 2026)

Companies looking for external support with the Research Allowance face a fragmented market – from broad grant consultancies to pure FZulG specialists. The table below places seven providers side by side, sorted alphabetically and based exclusively on what the providers themselves publish on their websites and in their legal notices (Impressum). Where a data point was not publicly available, the cell reads “n/a”.

“No ranking, no test winner – a fact table built from public self-disclosures so you can compare for yourself.”

Provider	Legal Form & Location	Specialization	Industry Focus	Fee Model	Size
Ayming Deutschland	Ayming Deutschland GmbH, Düsseldorf – German branch of the French Ayming group	Diversified: grants, Research Allowance, and international tax topics (per its own description)	Cross-industry; incl. automotive, energy, mechanical engineering, food, life sciences/pharma	Success-based (self-disclosed)	Approx. 70 employees in Germany (self-disclosed); group over 1,600 worldwide
Clever Funding	CF Clever Funding GmbH, Cologne	FZulG specialist – exclusive focus on the Research Allowance (per its own description)	Cross-industry; incl. AI/ML, mechanical engineering, software, fintech, health tech	n/a	Approx. 40+ employees (per team page), one location in Cologne
EurA	EurA AG, Ellwangen	General grant consultancy; the Research Allowance is one building block alongside regional, federal, and EU programs (per its own description)	Cross-industry; emphases incl. life science, ICT, aerospace, mobility, hydrogen	n/a	200+ employees, 16 locations in 4 countries (self-disclosed)
Grantonomy	MM Consulting UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Cologne – brand “Grantonomy”	FZulG specialist – exclusive focus on the Research Allowance (per its own description)	Cross-industry; examples: software & AI, product development, process innovation	Success-based (self-disclosed)	n/a (no headcount published on the website)
innoscripta	innoscripta SE, Tutzing	FZulG specialist – software-supported consulting with its own SaaS solution “Clusterix” (per its own description)	Cross-industry; no specific industry named	n/a	Several hundred employees, offices in several countries (self-disclosed)
NOVARIS Consulting (that’s us)	NOVARIS Consulting GmbH, Planegg near Munich	FZulG specialist – project analysis, BSFZ application, R&D documentation, and preparation of the Finanzamt application	Cross-industry; incl. software & IT, mechanical engineering, pharma, medical technology	Success-based	Specialized boutique consultancy, since 2021; 25+ engagements
Steinbeis Beratungszentrum (Technologieförderung & Projektfinanzierung)	Two legal entities per its Impressum: Steinbeis Beratungszentren GmbH (Stuttgart) and Steinbeis Technologie- & Innovationsberatung GmbH (Munich)	Grant consultancy with a focus on the Research Allowance; also ZIM and KMU-innovativ, among others (per its own description)	Cross-industry (self-disclosed “100+ industries”); highlighted incl. software/IT, AI, pharma, mechanical engineering	n/a	n/a (no own headcount published; embedded in the Steinbeis network)

Sources: providers’ own websites and legal notices, retrieved July 2026 – Ayming: Impressum, About, History · Clever Funding: Impressum, Website, About · EurA: Impressum, About, Anniversary article · Grantonomy: Impressum, Website · innoscripta: Impressum, Company · Steinbeis: Impressum, About, Website

How to read this: The table does not rate or rank – it places publicly available self-disclosures side by side. How to turn it into the right choice for your company is covered in the sections on provider types and selection criteria below.

How This Comparison Was Compiled

A comparison is only as good as its data – and only as honest as its disclosures. Here is the methodology in brief.

Data basis: public self-disclosures only

Sources: All data points come from the providers’ own publicly accessible websites and legal notices, retrieved in July 2026. Every row links to its sources. The statutory FZulG parameters used as a baseline are documented in our fact sheet.
No estimates: Nothing was added from memory, third-party sources, or review platforms. Where a data point was not available, the cell reads “n/a” instead of a guess.
Attribution: Providers’ self-descriptions are marked as such (“per its own description”, “self-disclosed”).

What this comparison deliberately does not rate

Prices and fee levels: Terms are individual and cannot be verified from public sources. The table therefore only states the fee model type, and only where the provider publishes it.
Consulting quality: Quality cannot be measured from the outside – it only shows in the actual engagement.
Third-party success rates: Approval rates of other providers are not publicly verifiable and are therefore neither quoted nor assessed.

Disclosure: NOVARIS is itself a provider in this comparison. That is exactly why this page avoids rankings, grades, and recommendation badges and restricts itself to verifiable self-disclosures from all providers – including our own. The table is reviewed regularly (next review: October 4, 2026). If you spot an outdated entry, we appreciate a note.

Tax Advisor, Grant Consultancy, or FZulG Specialist – Which Fits When?

Behind the seven providers in the table stand three basic types with different strength profiles. Which type fits depends less on the individual provider than on your starting position: how many programs do you use, how complex are your R&D projects, and how much internal capacity do you have?

Type 1

Tax Advisor

The tax advisory firm is set for the fiscal side anyway: Anlage FZ, integration into the tax return, communication with the Finanzamt. Some firms also take on the BSFZ application.

Fits if: your firm has demonstrable FZulG routine, the R&D case is small and clear-cut, and fiscal integration is the priority.
Does not fit if: it is your first BSFZ application, several or technically complex projects are involved, or the argument along novelty, technical risk, and systematic approach is decisive.

How the division of work between a tax firm and an FZulG specialist works in practice is covered separately: Research Allowance & Tax Advisors.

Type 2

Full-Service Grant Consultancy

Providers like EurA, Steinbeis Beratungszentrum, or Ayming cover a broad portfolio per their own descriptions – from ZIM and EU programs to the Research Allowance. Here, the allowance is one building block among several.

Fits if: you use or evaluate several programs in parallel, want an overarching strategy, and prefer one contact for the whole portfolio.
Does not fit if: you only use the Research Allowance and want a process built entirely around this one procedure.

Type 3

FZulG Specialist

Providers like innoscripta, Clever Funding, Grantonomy, or NOVARIS focus exclusively (or predominantly) on the Research Allowance per their own descriptions: project identification, BSFZ project descriptions, documentation, and – depending on the provider – preparation of the Finanzamt application.

Fits if: the Research Allowance is your central instrument, you value high application routine in the BSFZ procedure, and want documentation plus the Finanzamt application from one source.
Does not fit if: you expect broad screening across many programs – that is what Type 2 is built for.

Rule of thumb: First clarify your program portfolio, then choose the type, then compare within the type. The criteria for that follow in the next section.

What Really Matters When Comparing Providers

Legal form and headcount say little about how well a provider will carry your application through the procedure. These five criteria separate the offers in practice – the short version here, the detailed guide in Best Research Allowance Consulting.

1 Degree of specialization: Is the Research Allowance the core business or one building block among many? The “Specialization” column in the table above shows how the providers position themselves.

2 Verifiable references: Does the provider publish concrete, checkable numbers on engagements and filed volume – and disclose what those figures are based on?

3 Process depth: Does the provider cover both stages – BSFZ application and Finanzamt application (Anlage FZ) – including time tracking and R&D documentation?

4 Fee model type: Success-based, fixed fee, or hybrid – and what exactly is included in the scope? We break down the common cost models in Research Allowance Consulting: Costs.

5 Technical fit: Does the provider understand your technology well enough to argue novelty, technical risk, and systematic approach convincingly?

of 5

How many criteria can your favorite provider demonstrate?

0–2 criteria: Approach more providers
3–4 criteria: Solid basis – clarify open points in the first meeting
5 criteria: Strong shortlist candidate

Check NOVARIS

Important: No single criterion decides on its own. A provider with a large team but no responsibility for the Finanzamt application can be a worse fit than a small unit that covers both stages – and vice versa.

Which Provider Type Covers Which Services?

The three basic types differ mainly in which steps of the two-stage FZulG procedure they typically cover. The overview shows the pattern – the actual scope varies by provider, so always ask specifically.

Service	Tax Advisor	Full-Service Grant Consultancy	FZulG Specialist
R&D project identification		✓	✓
BSFZ application & project description	(✓)	✓	✓
Time tracking & R&D documentation		(✓)	✓
Prepare Finanzamt application (Anlage FZ)	✓	(✓)	✓
Submit tax return	✓
Other programs (ZIM, EU, state programs)		✓

(✓) = provider-dependent – offered by a subset of providers of this type. Typological overview derived from the self-descriptions of the provider types.

Five Steps to the Right Provider

1

Clarify Needs

Research Allowance only, or several programs in parallel?

2

Build a Shortlist

Pick 2–3 providers of the fitting type – table above as a starting point

3

Hold First Meetings

Ask everyone the same questions (section below)

4

Compare Offers

Put scope and fee model type side by side

5

Decide

Fix responsibilities and deadlines in the kick-off

Timing tip: The selection process typically takes two to four weeks. Plan it so the BSFZ application can be prepared within the current fiscal year – retroactive applications remain possible, but the earlier the documentation starts, the more robust it is.

7 Questions for the First Meeting With Any Provider

First meetings only become comparable when you ask every provider the same questions. These seven cover the points where offerings differ most in practice – note the answers in a structured way.

1. How many FZulG applications have you handled in the last twelve months? Routine in the BSFZ procedure shows in concrete numbers – not in marketing promises.

2. Who actually writes the BSFZ project description? An experienced adviser, a junior team, or primarily software? All three models exist on the market – you should know which one you are buying.

3. How do you handle queries or a BSFZ rejection? Revisions, statements, and appeals are part of the procedure – clarify up front whether these cases are included in the scope.

4. Do you also support the tax office application (Annex FZ)? The BSFZ certificate is only stage one – without a clean tax office application, no money flows.

5. What is your solution for time tracking and R&D documentation? The documentation must withstand a later tax audit – ask about the specific process and templates.

6. How is your fee model structured? Success-based, fixed fee, or hybrid – and which services are included, which cost extra? The model type belongs in writing in the proposal.

7. Which references from our industry or technology can you name? Sector know-how determines how convincingly the novelty and technical risk of your projects are argued.

Tip: Reputable providers answer all seven questions concretely and without evasion – that applies to us too. Ask NOVARIS the same questions in a free initial consultation.

Generalist or Specialist – What Suits Your Company?

Full-Service Grant Consultancy

Broad programme portfolio

VS

OR BOTH?

FZulG Specialist

Focus on one procedure

Among external advisers, the fundamental question remains: a broadly positioned generalist or a focused specialist? Both models have clear, legitimate strength profiles – the comparison shows which profile fits which starting point:

Full-Service Grant Consultancy

✓Several funding programmes from one source (ZIM, EU, state programmes)

✓Programme screening and an overarching funding strategy

✓A single point of contact for the entire funding portfolio

✓Useful when the research allowance is only one of several building blocks

FZulG Specialist

✓High application routine in exactly one procedure: the FZulG

✓Routine in BSFZ project descriptions (novelty, technical risk, systematic approach)

✓Processes and templates for time tracking & R&D documentation

✓Both procedural stages in view – from the BSFZ to the tax office application

In context: There is no „better“ in absolute terms – only a „better fit for your situation“. Companies using many programmes in parallel are often well served by the generalist model; those wanting to execute the research allowance as a central instrument as cleanly as possible are better served by the specialist. Some companies combine both.

Where NOVARIS Fits Into This Comparison

Full transparency instead of hidden self-promotion: NOVARIS belongs to the FZulG Specialist type – and thus to the providers in the table above. Here is our own disclosure along the same criteria we apply to everyone else:

Criterion	NOVARIS disclosure
Type & specialisation	FZulG specialist – exclusively the research allowance: project analysis, BSFZ application, R&D documentation, preparation of the tax office application
Legal form & registered office	NOVARIS Consulting GmbH, Planegg near Munich (HRB 312039, Munich Local Court)
Specialised since	Since 2021
References	25+ mandates, EUR 18.85 million in applied funding volume, 100 % approval rate (own client data)
Fee model	Success-based – remuneration only upon approval, initial analysis free of charge
Process depth	Both procedural stages: BSFZ application and tax office application, including time tracking and documentation

Precisely because we are an interested party, this comparison avoids grades and recommendations: you see the same criteria for all seven providers and decide for yourself. The easiest way to test what we claim is with the seven first-meeting questions above – put to us.

Free initial consultation: We analyse without obligation whether your projects meet the FZulG criteria and what funding volume is realistic. Because we work on a success basis, there is no upfront risk for you. Book an appointment – and feel free to compare us with two more providers from the table.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which Research Allowance consultants exist in Germany?

The market splits into three basic types: tax advisors who cover the fiscal side, full-service grant consultancies that manage many programs in parallel, and specialized FZulG consultants who focus exclusively on the Research Allowance. The comparison table above lists seven concrete providers – Ayming, Clever Funding, EurA, Grantonomy, innoscripta, NOVARIS, and Steinbeis Beratungszentrum – with legal form, location, specialization, industry focus, and size, based exclusively on public self-disclosures.

What distinguishes specialized consultants from tax advisors?

Tax advisors are experts for the fiscal side: Anlage FZ, integration into the tax return, and communication with the Finanzamt. Specialized FZulG consultants focus on the technical side: identifying eligible R&D projects, writing BSFZ project descriptions along the criteria of novelty, technical risk, and systematic approach, and maintaining the ongoing documentation. Both roles complement each other – in practice, an FZulG specialist and the client’s tax advisory firm usually work in coordination.

How many providers should you approach?

Two to three initial consultations are a good benchmark. First meetings are free with most providers, and only a direct comparison reveals differences in scope, process depth, and fee model type. Ask every provider the same questions – for example about application frequency, who writes the project description, and whether the Finanzamt application is covered – and record the answers in a structured way.

Are success-based fee models better?

There is no universal answer. Success-based models tie the fee to the approval – this reduces the company’s upfront risk and aligns the consultant’s interests with the client’s. Fixed-fee or time-based models can also fit for large, clearly scoped projects. What matters is that the fee model type is transparent and the included scope of services is clearly defined.

Does the consultant also handle the Finanzamt application?

This varies by provider. The Research Allowance is a two-stage process: first the BSFZ certificate, then the Finanzamt application via Anlage FZ. Some providers only support the BSFZ stage, others cover both. NOVARIS also prepares the Finanzamt application and hands over all documents to the client’s tax advisory firm in a coordinated package. Ask explicitly before signing whether both stages are included.

Research Allowance Consultants Compared

Providers at a Glance (as of July 2026)

How This Comparison Was Compiled

Data basis: public self-disclosures only

What this comparison deliberately does not rate

Tax Advisor, Grant Consultancy, or FZulG Specialist – Which Fits When?

Tax Advisor

Full-Service Grant Consultancy

FZulG Specialist

What Really Matters When Comparing Providers

Which Provider Type Covers Which Services?

Five Steps to the Right Provider

7 Questions for the First Meeting With Any Provider

Generalist or Specialist – What Suits Your Company?

Where NOVARIS Fits Into This Comparison

Frequently Asked Questions

Further Reading

Sources & legal references

NOVARIS Handles Your Complete FZulG Application