Loading…
Loading…
Utah · Nonprofit
BIOHIVE INSTITUTE (Utah) is funded by 3 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $489,250 in grants to it, the largest being FIDELITY INVESTMENTS CHARITABLE GIFT FUND ($300,000). 1 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
BIOHIVE INSTITUTE has grown faster than three-quarters of the 47 science & tech nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 47 science & tech nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2025
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The funding model — what share of revenue comes from contributions, programs, investments and other sources — and whether it's shifting.
100% of BIOHIVE INSTITUTE’s revenue is contributions — more reliant on donations than three-quarters of its peers (70% for the typical peer).
Operating surplus or deficit each year, and months of liquidity in hand. 1 of the last 3 reported years ran a deficit.
$114k from 2 funders in 2024, up from $375k and 2 in 2022.
3 of 3 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 100% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of BIOHIVE INSTITUTE’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
BIOHIVE INSTITUTE leans on a few funders — its largest provides 61% of grant income and the top three 100%; half comes from just 1 funder.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 1 funder to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2022 80% · 2024 56% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
BIOHIVE INSTITUTE draws 100% of its grant income from funders outside Utah — its reputation reaches beyond the state, across 3 states in all.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
51% of spending goes to programs.
0%
Share of support from the public (Schedule A) — the basis for its public-charity status.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2025 (financials across 2022–2025), and the filings of 3funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing