Direct comparison
Type 1 vs. Type 2 Grant (NIH) Explained
NIH Type 1 = new application. Type 2 = competing renewal, fully peer-reviewed. Learn the difference, which mechanisms allow renewal, and where it shows up.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Type 1 vs. Type 2 Grant (NIH) Explained
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Type 1 (New Application), Type 2 (Competing Renewal) compare side by side?
The table below compares Type 1 (New Application), Type 2 (Competing Renewal) across 7 procurement-relevant dimensions, from what it requests through not to be confused with.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Type 1 (New Application) | Type 2 (Competing Renewal) |
|---|---|---|
| What it requests | Support for a project not currently receiving NIH funding | Additional support for a period beyond a current award's existing project period |
| Peer review | Full scientific/technical merit review, standard study section process | Full peer review required -- must be developed as though applying for the first time, not a formality |
| Competes for funding | Yes | Yes -- competes against Type 1 and other applications in the same cycle |
| Prior-progress evidence expected | Not applicable (no prior NIH award on this project) | Yes -- reviewers weigh progress, publications, and milestones from the current project period |
| Grant-number digit | Leading "1" (e.g. 1 R01 CA123456-01) | Leading "2" (e.g. 2 R01 CA123456-06A1) |
| Availability by mechanism | Available for essentially all NIH activity codes | Mechanism-dependent -- e.g. available for R01, NOT available for R21 (no renewal mechanism) |
| Not to be confused with | N/A | Type 5 (noncompeting continuation/RPPR) and No-Cost Extensions, neither of which involve competing peer review |
Common questions
Common questions about Type 1 (New Application) vs Type 2 (Competing Renewal)
Is a Type 2 the same as a No-Cost Extension?
+
No. A No-Cost Extension keeps an existing project period going longer with no new funds and no new peer review. A Type 2 is a separate, fully competing application for an entirely new project period, peer-reviewed on its own merits.
Can any NIH activity code have a Type 2 renewal?
+
No -- renewal eligibility is set by the activity code and sometimes the specific Funding Opportunity Announcement. R01 supports Type 2 competing renewal; R21 explicitly does not.
Does a Type 2 application need to be as detailed as a Type 1?
+
Yes. NIH policy requires a competing renewal to be fully developed and peer-reviewed as though the applicant were applying for the first time.
Where does the Type code appear on an NIH award?
+
As the leading digit of the NIH grant number, before the activity code -- for example the "1" in 1 R01 GM123456-01 or the "2" in 2 R01 GM123456-06A1.
