The whole list, as one file
Free, no account, no key. If you are reading this because a page told you that you had opened three hundred calls today, this is what it was pointing at — take the file instead.
Two files
Closing in the next 30 days — 240 calls. The slice a newsletter or a research office bulletin wants.
Every open call this tool can link to — 1,320, including the ones with no stated deadline.
Why some rows have no text
Every row carries the facts: title, funder, programme, the dates, and the funder's own URL. A closing date is a fact and facts belong to nobody. Assembling 1,325 open calls from 29 registers is the work, and that compilation is ours.
Only 4 of those 29 registers grant anyone the right to republish their text:
- eu — Commission Decision 2011/833/EU
- grants_gov — United States Government work (17 U.S.C. §105), public domain
- ukri — Open Government Licence v3.0
- icmr_in — Reproduction permitted free of charge with the source acknowledged (ICMR Copyright Policy)
So 883 rows carry the
summary, scope and eligibility text as well, and the rest carry
text_included: false and a link to the funder's own page. The
others gave us access, not redistribution, and this site can grant
neither more nor less than it was
given. Each row states its own source licence; where that is more
permissive than ours, it wins for that row.
What you may do with it
Read it, search it, put it in your own systems. No conditions, nothing to sign, no email.
Republish it non-commercially — a newsletter, a bulletin, an intranet — under CC BY-NC 4.0, which asks one thing: say where it came from, with a link to fundingradar.eu.
Commercial or systematic reuse of the compilation — a paid product, a subscription service, another aggregator, an AI training set: [email protected]. That is about the compilation, not about the facts, and not about the material whose own licence already permits it.
Citing it in a paper or a report
These files are rebuilt from the database on every request, so they say what the site says today and not what it said when you wrote your methods section. For anything that has to be reproducible, cite the deposit instead: it holds all four of them frozen as they stood on one day, with a paper describing how the records are produced and what is known to be wrong with them.
Kahlem, P. (2026). Funding Radar: an open register of public research funding calls, with machine-read closing dates and per-record reuse terms (snapshot of 5 October 2026) [Data set and resource description]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23169743
Republishing the compilation still asks for the link to fundingradar.eu, as the card above says. Cite this alongside it: the link says where the data came from, and the DOI says which version of it you used: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23169743
If you want it from the source
Two of the three above publish their own bulk data, free and fresher than this: Grants.gov issues a complete database extract every day, and UKRI publishes a feed. If US federal or UK calls are all you need, go there rather than here. What this file has that they do not is the other 25 registers in the same shape, with the dates parsed.
What is left out
5 open calls are not in these files, because this tool holds no link to the funder's page for them. For a source whose text cannot be republished here, that link is the whole of what a row is for, and a title with no way to reach it is not something to hand out. They are counted here rather than quietly missing.
Rebuilt on every request from the same database the pages read, so a file downloaded now says what the site says now. Cached for an hour at the edge.