Skip to content
Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc at a glance

· Private foundation

Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc

Its FY2024 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$2.4M
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$1.4M
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
0193% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Science & Tech$5.3MHealth$3.7MEducation$1.3MHuman Services$510kSocial Science$313kPhilanthropy$250kArts & Culture$200kPublic Benefit$191kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $50k–250k3 grants · $450k
  • $250k+3 grants · $1.9M
$250,000
Median grant
3
States reached
$21M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ENTROPY SOFTWARE FOUNDATION$1,350,000
FORESITE INSTITUTE$307,500
MARICI$250,000
BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH$200,000
ILLUMINATE THE ARTS$200,000
CITY OF SMILE USA INC$50,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY23–24, $500k) land where the poverty rate runs at 10%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 9%MARICI: $250k → 10%MARICI: $250k → 10%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

87%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$10M · 12 repeat orgs$1.6M to everyone else

12 repeat relationships: 4 still active in FY2024, 8 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

12
11

Total granted

$10M
$1.3M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

-9%
+72%

Still filing today

58%
64%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 89% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $250k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24
EducationPhilanthropyScience & TechHealthArts & CulturePublic BenefitOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • ES
    ENTROPY SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC
    4× · 2021–2024 · $3.9M · revenue +47% · 100% of their budget
  • LR
    Lifespan Research Institution
    5× · 2017–2021 · $1.8M · revenue -77%
  • BI
    BUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH
    4× · 2019–2024 · $1.0M

Funded once

  • UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2018 · $748k · revenue +72%
  • TG
    THE GIVING BANK FUNDAI FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2022 · $200k
  • XP
    X PRIZE FOUNDATION INCgraduated
    one grant, 2019 · $191k · revenue +159%
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
New York Genome Center Inc

Operate a state-of-the-art, world-class genomic research center that creates and uses advanced genomics to understand the genetic basis of disease. for more information, see schedule o.

Health
2
Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences Foundation
Philanthropy
3
Cern Foundation
—
4
Aegis Sciences Foundation
—
5
Quantum Gravity Research
Environment
6
Gravity Research Foundation
—
7
The Cloud Artscience Foundation
—
8
The Translational Genomics Research Institute

Please see schedule o

Health
9
Whole Genome Science Foundation Inc
—
10
Genomic Data Initiative
Science & Tech
11
Center for Responsible Science
Philanthropy
12
Foundation for Advancement of Research in Financial Economics-C/O Dr C Spatt
Education
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is University of Maryland College Park Foundation Inc; the most unlike its peers is Entropy Software Foundation Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

16 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 16 of the 25 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

1
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/16
Grantees still filing
7/16
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ENTROPY SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC: $3,920,000 · Science & TechENTROPY SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC+1 more: $2,500 · Science & TechBUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH: $1,015,000 · OtherBUCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARC…MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED: $690,000 · OtherMASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCOR…FORESITE INSTITUTE: $312,500 · OtherFORESITE INSTITUTETHE GIVING BANK FUNDAI FOUNDATION: $200,000 · OtherTHE GIVING BANK FUNDAI FOU…ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE: $176,830 · OtherALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF…Individual grant recipient: $150,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipient+8 more: $227,296 · Other+8 moreLifespan Research Institution: $1,750,000 · HealthLifespan Research Ins…Norn Group: $500,000 · HealthNorn GroupUNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK FOUNDATION INC: $747,716 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF MARY…UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $600,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF ROCH…UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $575,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALI…MARICI: $500,000 · Human ServicesVIRTUAL SCIENCE CENTER INC: $300,000 · Arts & CultureILLUMINATE THE ARTS: $200,000 · Arts & CultureX PRIZE FOUNDATION INC: $191,000 · Public Benefit
Science & Tech$3,922,500Other$2,771,626Health$2,250,000Education$1,922,716Human Services$500,000Arts & Culture$500,000Public Benefit$191,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetENTROPY SOFTWARE FOUNDATION INC: $3,920,000 over 4y, 100% of budgetLifespan Research Institution: $1,750,000 over 5y, 19% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER: $600,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $575,000 over 3y, 0.0% of budgetNorn Group: $500,000 over 2y, 9.9% of budgetMARICI: $500,000 over 2y, 6.0% of budgetVIRTUAL SCIENCE CENTER INC: $300,000 over 2y, 10% of budgetILLUMINATE THE ARTS: $200,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budgetX PRIZE FOUNDATION INC: $191,000 over 1y, 1.0% of budgetNA KOA MANU CONSERVATION INC: $75,000 over 1y, 15% of budgetLegacy Global Programs: $50,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetCITY OF SMILE - USA INC: $50,000 over 1y, 12% of budgetTHE TONY ROBBINS FOUNDATION: $10,000 over 1y, 0.2% of budgetGABRIELLE'S ANGEL FOUNDATION FOR CANCER RESEARCH INC: $3,296 over 1y, 0.1% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Silicon Valley Commun…National Philanthropi…Vanguard Charitable E…American Endowment Fo…Morgan Stanley Global…American Online Givin…Network for GoodDonor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Silicon Valley Community FoundationCA16.3× affinity7 shared granteesties to 9 of 9Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Silicon Valley Community Foundation · National Philanthropic Trust · Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program · American Endowment Foundation · Morgan Stanley Global Impact Funding Trust Inc · American Online Giving Foundation Inc · Network for Good · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 30%6%25%56%100%funder's share of their income ↑0%3%5%8%10%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    3get no government money at all
    2report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–10%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc?

    Find your warmest path to Michael Antonov Charitable Foundation Inc through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 25 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Michael Antonov’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home