Best SR&ED Software for Canadian SaaS Companies (2026)

What Is the Best SR&ED Software for a Canadian SaaS Company in 2026?

For most Canadian SaaS companies in 2026, the strongest SR&ED platform is the one that connects directly to the tools your engineering team already uses, captures evidence continuously rather than reconstructing it once a year, and charges a transparent fee that does not scale linearly with claim size. By those criteria, GrantOps is the leading purpose-built platform, with Boast.ai as the strongest alternative for companies that also need US R&D tax credit coverage. The traditional contingency consultants (G6 Consulting, Leyton, Ryan) and marketplace platforms (Hello Darwin) remain credible options for companies that prefer a fully delegated engagement at a higher cost share.

This guide compares eight platforms used by Canadian SaaS companies to prepare SR&ED claims: GrantOps, Boast.ai, G6 Consulting, Leyton, Hello Darwin, SRED.io, ClaimGen, and Granted. Each is evaluated on the criteria that matter for software companies specifically: developer tool integrations, claim review process, time-to-first-claim, pricing transparency, and post-filing audit support. The locked pricing figures throughout reflect publicly disclosed or directly observable values as of May 2026. Where a vendor does not publish a price, the entry says so explicitly rather than inventing a number.

For broader context on the SR&ED program itself, the complete SR&ED guide covers the legislative basis under Income Tax Act Section 248(1) and the CRA filing process. For a sector-specific deep dive on common eligible work, see SR&ED-eligible project examples.

---

Evaluation Criteria for SaaS Companies

SaaS companies have a different SR&ED profile than hardware, biotech, or industrial R&D claimants. The eligible work concentrates in software architecture, performance engineering, machine learning, data pipeline design, and platform reliability. The evidence lives in source control, ticket systems, and communication tools rather than lab notebooks or test rigs. The expenditures are dominated by salaries and contractor fees rather than materials. The right platform reflects that reality.

The seven criteria used in this comparison:

1. Developer tool integrations. Direct OAuth connections to GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Jira, Linear, Asana, ClickUp, and Slack. Continuous capture beats annual interviews.
2. Claim review process. Who reviews the claim before it is filed: an in-house SR&ED expert, an external consultant from a marketplace, your CPA, or no one.
3. Time-to-first-claim. Calendar days from kickoff to a complete first-draft T661 package.
4. Pricing model and transparency. Published versus quote-only; flat fee, success fee, contingency, or marketplace commission.
5. CRA audit support. What happens when CRA opens a review of the filed claim and whether audit defence is included.
6. Provincial credit coverage. Ontario OITC, Quebec RS&DE, British Columbia BCITC, Alberta AITC support.
7. Time-tracking and hour validation. Mechanisms to validate eligible hours against payroll and contractor invoices.

A SaaS company that prioritises engineering velocity over claim management work will weight integrations and time-to-first-claim heavily. A company that prefers a fully delegated engagement will weight claim review process and CRA audit support more.

---

At-a-Glance Comparison

Notes on the table. "Limited direct dev tool integration" means evidence is collected primarily through document upload and structured interviews rather than continuous capture from connected tools. Contingency percentages reflect typical market rates for traditional SR&ED consulting engagements in Canada; the precise rate is negotiated per engagement. Marketplace commissions for Hello Darwin reflect the typical range across the consultant network on their platform.

---

1. GrantOps

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies, engineering-led R&D teams, CPA firms serving multiple SaaS clients, and any Canadian company that wants AI-driven evidence capture from existing developer tools paired with transparent platform pricing.

GrantOps is a purpose-built SR&ED and grants automation platform designed around the way software teams actually work. Instead of asking engineers to stop and document their SR&ED activities through forms, GrantOps connects directly to the tools they already use (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Jira, Linear, Asana, ClickUp, Slack) via OAuth and captures eligible activity continuously throughout the year.

Pricing model. Two published tiers, both with the same flat 8% success fee on awarded SR&ED refunds. Starter is $99 per month. Professional is $499 per month month-to-month, or $3,594 per year ($299 per month equivalent, 40 percent off when billed yearly). A free trial is available on both tiers. There is also an Expert/Enterprise tier for CPA firms and high-volume use cases priced via the Partner Program.

Concrete economics for SaaS companies. On a representative SaaS R&D claim of $200,000 in qualified expenditures yielding roughly $70,000 in federal investment tax credit (Canadian-controlled private corporation rate) plus provincial credit, the GrantOps Starter plan total cost is approximately $8,000 to $9,000 ($99 x 12 + a flat 8% of awarded funding). The same claim through a traditional 25 to 30 percent contingency consultant costs approximately $30,000 to $60,000, depending on whether the percentage is applied to the federal-only or combined federal-and-provincial refund. The savings range is approximately $21,000 to $52,000.

Integrations. Direct OAuth into GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket for commits, pull requests, branches, and code review history. Jira, Linear, Asana, ClickUp, and Monday.com for ticket-level evidence of technological uncertainty and systematic investigation. Slack for design discussions and architecture decisions. Payroll integrations for hour validation. QuickBooks Online, Xero, and FreshBooks for accounting reconciliation.

Claim review process. In-platform quality gates validate completeness at each artifact stage (risk analysis, cost ledger, calculations methodology, science narrative, evidence package, hour validation). Professional and Expert tiers include access to GrantOps-vetted senior reviewers for pre-filing sanity checks. Filing is performed by your accountant or in-house tax preparer with the generated T661 schedules attached to the T2.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 5 to 10 business days from connecting integrations to a complete first-draft package, because evidence is structured continuously rather than reconstructed annually. Year-two onward is faster.

Provincial credit coverage. Ontario OITC, Quebec RS&DE, British Columbia BCITC, and Alberta AITC with province-specific calculation templates. Provincial program guides are linked from the platform.

Key limitation. GrantOps is Canada-only. SaaS companies with material US-based R&D activity that need US R&D tax credit support in the same platform should evaluate Boast.ai instead, or run a hybrid (GrantOps for SR&ED, separate US R&D platform).

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies of any size that want continuous evidence capture from dev tools, transparent pricing, and a fast path from work-already-done to filed claim.

---

2. Boast.ai

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that also file US R&D tax credits and want a single platform covering both jurisdictions, plus companies that prefer an in-house SR&ED expert review of every claim before filing.

Boast.ai is the most established cross-border R&D tax credit platform serving the Canadian SR&ED and US R&D tax credit markets. The company has raised significant venture funding and built a substantial brand presence in the technology community. Its primary differentiator is dual-jurisdiction coverage: a Canadian SaaS company with US-based engineering subsidiaries or US-incorporated entities can run both programs through a single vendor relationship.

Pricing model. Boast.ai uses a success-fee model commonly cited at approximately 20 percent of the awarded refund. Specific rates are quote-based and negotiated per engagement; published list pricing is not available on the Boast website as of May 2026. On a $200,000 SR&ED claim yielding $70,000 federal ITC plus provincial credit, the Boast success fee is approximately $14,000 to $25,000 depending on whether the percentage is applied federal-only or combined.

Integrations. Boast does not offer the same depth of direct dev-tool OAuth integration as GrantOps. Evidence collection relies more on structured interviews, document upload, and analyst-led reconstruction. This is a deliberate model choice: Boast's in-house SR&ED experts review every claim, and the workflow is designed around that human review rather than continuous machine capture.

Claim review process. In-house SR&ED experts review each claim before filing. This is a genuine strength for companies that want a human expert to look at the package, push back on weak narratives, and flag eligibility issues before submission. The trade-off is that human review is the bottleneck that drives the 4 to 8 week timeline and the success-fee economics.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 4 to 8 weeks from kickoff. Year-two engagements are faster.

Provincial credit coverage. All Canadian provincial credits supported.

Key limitation. Pricing scales with claim size in a way that approaches traditional consultant economics on larger claims. For a $500,000 SR&ED claim, a 20 percent success fee is approximately $35,000 to $70,000, which is similar to a 25 to 30 percent traditional consultant on a smaller claim base. Companies confident in their eligibility and comfortable with platform-driven preparation typically pay materially less with GrantOps on identical claim sizes.

Best for: SaaS companies with dual Canada/US R&D operations, or Canadian-only companies that specifically want a vendor with in-house SR&ED experts reviewing every claim.

For a detailed head-to-head, see GrantOps vs Boast.ai.

---

3. G6 Consulting

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that prefer a fully delegated, traditional consulting engagement with a senior SR&ED practitioner managing the entire claim, accepting a 25 to 30 percent contingency cost in exchange.

G6 Consulting is a traditional Canadian SR&ED consulting firm operating on the contingency model that has dominated the industry for two decades. The firm assigns a senior consultant to each engagement, conducts technical interviews with the engineering team, drafts the project narratives, calculates eligible expenditures, prepares the T661 schedules, and provides defence support during a CRA review at no additional cost.

Pricing model. Traditional contingency of approximately 25 to 30 percent of the awarded refund. No upfront fee. No success, no charge. Specific rates are negotiated per engagement and depend on claim complexity and size. On a $200,000 SR&ED claim yielding $70,000 federal ITC plus provincial credit, the G6 contingency fee is approximately $30,000 to $60,000 depending on the combined refund and the negotiated percentage.

Integrations. None native. Evidence is gathered through structured technical interviews, sample documentation review, and Q&A with the engineering team. For SaaS companies, this means engineering time investment during the engagement (typically 2 to 4 hours of interview time per project, plus document gathering).

Claim review process. In-house consultants prepare and review the claim. The same consultant typically owns the engagement end-to-end. CRA audit defence is included if the claim is later reviewed.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 6 to 12 weeks from kickoff. Year-two onward is moderately faster because the consultant has institutional knowledge of the client's R&D portfolio.

Key limitation. The contingency cost is the primary trade-off. On a $200,000 claim, the gap versus GrantOps Starter is approximately $25,000 to $55,000. For SaaS companies filing multiple claims over multiple years, that gap compounds. The model is best suited to companies that genuinely cannot allocate internal time to claim preparation and prefer to delegate completely.

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that want a traditional, human-led engagement with audit defence bundled in, and that accept the contingency cost share in exchange for full delegation.

---

4. Leyton

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies and mid-market technology firms looking for a global consultancy with adjacent tax-credit expertise (US R&D, international R&D incentives, energy credits) bundled into the engagement.

Leyton is a global innovation-funding consultancy with operations across Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and several other markets. In Canada, the firm operates as a traditional SR&ED consultancy on the contingency model. Its broader positioning is global R&D tax credit advisory: Canadian SaaS companies with international operations sometimes choose Leyton specifically for cross-jurisdiction coordination.

Pricing model. Traditional contingency of approximately 25 to 30 percent of the awarded refund. Specific rates are negotiated per engagement. On a $200,000 SR&ED claim, the Leyton fee is approximately $30,000 to $60,000 on the combined federal and provincial refund.

Integrations. None native. The engagement model is consultant-led with document upload and structured interviews.

Claim review process. In-house consultants supported by tax advisors. The cross-jurisdiction expertise is a genuine strength for companies with multi-country R&D footprints.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 6 to 12 weeks.

Key limitation. Same contingency cost trade-off as G6. The global-consultancy positioning is most valuable for mid-market and larger firms; smaller Canadian SaaS companies typically do not need the international coordination.

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies with international R&D operations or mid-market firms that want a global consultancy relationship.

---

5. Hello Darwin

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that want a marketplace-style match to an independent SR&ED consultant, with vendor selection guidance and a single intake point rather than a traditional firm relationship.

Hello Darwin operates a marketplace model that matches Canadian businesses with vetted SR&ED consultants from a network of independent practitioners and small consulting firms. The platform handles intake, qualification, and matching; the actual claim preparation is performed by the matched consultant under their own engagement terms.

Pricing model. Marketplace commission of approximately 15 to 25 percent of the awarded refund, with the exact rate determined by the matched consultant. Hello Darwin does not publish a fixed price because the engagement contract is between the client and the matched consultant, not Hello Darwin itself. On a $200,000 claim, total consultant cost is approximately $15,000 to $50,000 depending on the matched consultant and the combined refund base.

Integrations. Depends entirely on the matched consultant. Most independent practitioners on the network use document upload and interview-based evidence collection.

Claim review process. The matched consultant prepares and reviews the claim. Quality varies by consultant. Hello Darwin's value-add is the vetting and matching layer.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 4 to 8 weeks from match to filed package.

Key limitation. Variance. Because the actual work is performed by a network of independent consultants, the experience can differ significantly between engagements. Companies that want consistent platform-driven preparation should choose a purpose-built platform; companies that specifically want consultant choice and matching should consider Hello Darwin.

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that want a consultant relationship but prefer a curated match rather than direct outreach to traditional firms.

---

6. SRED.io

Best for: Smaller Canadian SaaS startups (pre-Series A) that want a self-serve platform with structured templates, optional review, and a lower entry price.

SRED.io is a self-serve SR&ED preparation platform positioned at the lower end of the cost spectrum. The platform provides templated T661 forms, narrative guidance, expenditure calculators, and structured workflows aimed at smaller Canadian R&D companies. It targets the segment that finds traditional consultants too expensive and wants a guided do-it-yourself path.

Pricing model. Subscription plus a small success fee. Specific tiers are published on the SRED.io website. Pricing is materially lower than traditional consultants but typically higher than GrantOps Starter at $99 per month when the success-fee component is included.

Integrations. Limited. Evidence is collected through document upload and structured questionnaires rather than direct dev-tool OAuth.

Claim review process. Self-serve preparation with optional human review at higher tiers.

Time-to-first-claim. Typically 2 to 6 weeks depending on tier.

Key limitation. Lower automation depth than GrantOps. For companies whose evidence already lives in GitHub, Jira, and Slack, the value of continuous capture is significant; SRED.io's document-upload model leaves more of that capture work to the team.

Best for: Pre-Series A SaaS startups with simple R&D portfolios and limited budget who want a structured DIY path.

---

7. ClaimGen

Best for: Canadian small businesses (including small SaaS startups) that want a low-cost subscription platform for SR&ED preparation with minimal hand-holding.

ClaimGen is a subscription-based SR&ED preparation tool aimed at small Canadian businesses. The platform provides templated forms, calculation workflows, and basic narrative guidance. Like SRED.io, the model is self-serve with paid tiers for additional support.

Pricing model. Subscription tiers published on the ClaimGen website. Generally positioned at the lower-cost end of the market.

Integrations. Limited.

Claim review process. Self-serve.

Time-to-first-claim. 2 to 6 weeks.

Key limitation. Same self-serve trade-offs as SRED.io: lower automation depth and limited evidence integration relative to purpose-built platforms with OAuth dev-tool capture.

Best for: Small Canadian SaaS startups looking for a budget-tier subscription tool.

---

8. Granted (SR&ED module)

Best for: Canadian SaaS companies that want a broader grants-and-tax-credits platform with an SR&ED module integrated alongside grant discovery and application support.

Granted is a Canadian grants-and-funding platform with an SR&ED preparation module among its broader product set. The platform's primary positioning is grant discovery and application support; the SR&ED module is an adjacent capability that integrates with the grants workflow.

Pricing model. Subscription plus optional success fee on the SR&ED module. Published tiers.

Integrations. Some platform integrations.

Claim review process. Self-serve preparation with advisor options at higher tiers.

Time-to-first-claim. 2 to 6 weeks.

Key limitation. The SR&ED module is one component of a broader product rather than the core focus. Companies whose primary need is SR&ED automation typically get deeper specialisation from a purpose-built platform.

Best for: SaaS companies that also want active grant discovery (IRAP, CanExport, provincial programs) alongside SR&ED preparation in a single tool.

---

Decision Framework: Which Platform for Which SaaS Profile

Procurement decisions for SR&ED software rarely come down to feature checklists. They come down to claim size, internal capacity, and tolerance for cost-share versus delegation. Here are the four profiles Canadian SaaS companies most often fall into.

Profile 1: Engineering-led SaaS, 5 to 50 engineers, claim size $150K to $500K. Choose GrantOps. The combination of direct OAuth integration with GitHub, Jira, Linear, and Slack, the $99 to $499 per month platform pricing, the flat 8 percent success fee, and the 5-to-10-day time-to-first-claim is purpose-built for this profile. Year-two onward becomes nearly automatic because the evidence pipeline is already running.

Profile 2: Canadian SaaS with material US R&D operations. Choose Boast.ai or run a hybrid. Boast's dual-jurisdiction coverage is genuinely useful when the same engineering team produces work claimable under both SR&ED and US R&D tax credits. The hybrid alternative is GrantOps for SR&ED plus a US-focused platform (Boast US-only, Neo, or others) for the Section 174 / Section 41 side. The right choice depends on the relative weight of Canadian versus US R&D and whether a single-vendor relationship is operationally valuable.

Profile 3: Mid-market SaaS or PE-backed software firm, claim size $500K plus, prefers full delegation. Consider Leyton or G6. The contingency cost is real but the full-delegation model removes claim preparation from the internal team's workload entirely. CRA audit defence is bundled. For companies whose engineering leadership specifically does not want to allocate time to SR&ED, the consultant path is defensible despite the cost.

Profile 4: Pre-Series A SaaS startup, first SR&ED claim, claim size under $150K. Choose GrantOps Starter or one of the self-serve tools (SRED.io, ClaimGen). At sub-$150K claim size, the absolute dollar gap between platforms is smaller, but the percentage cost of contingency consultants is harder to justify against the runway impact. The GrantOps Starter plan ($99 per month + a flat 8 percent success fee on the awarded refund) typically lands at $4,000 to $5,000 total on a $100K claim versus $25,000 to $30,000 for a traditional consultant.

A fifth profile worth naming: CPA firms preparing SR&ED claims for multiple SaaS clients. The GrantOps Partner Program is purpose-built for that use case with multi-client management, white-label options, and per-FTE utilisation economics that materially change advisory practice scaling.

---

What "AI-Generated" Actually Means for SR&ED

The phrase "AI-generated SR&ED claim" gets used loosely across the industry in 2026. It is worth being precise about what AI can and cannot do in this context.

What AI does well. Pattern recognition across large volumes of engineering activity (commits, pull requests, tickets, design documents). Identification of work that pattern-matches to the three SR&ED criteria from Income Tax Act Section 248(1): technological uncertainty, systematic investigation, and technological advancement. Drafting of project narrative sections in CRA-aligned language with specific references back to the underlying evidence. Cross-referencing of expenditure categories against the eligible-cost rules in the SR&ED Salary or Wages Policy and the Total Qualified SR&ED Expenditures Policy.

What AI does not do. Replace legal or accounting judgement on eligibility edge cases. Substitute for contemporaneous documentation where none exists. Eliminate the need for a tax professional to sign the T2 return that the T661 schedules attach to. Make a claim defensible if the underlying R&D work does not meet the SR&ED criteria.

GrantOps's architectural premise is that AI is a leverage tool, not a substitute for the work. The platform produces interconnected artifacts (risk analysis, cost ledger, calculations methodology, narratives, evidence package, hour validation) with quality gates that catch incompleteness before it reaches CRA. A generic AI tool (ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot) used without that artifact pipeline can produce text that reads correctly but lacks the cross-referenced evidence chain that survives a CRA review. The difference between "AI wrote a narrative" and "an AI-driven system produced an audit-ready claim package" is operationally enormous.

---

CRA Source References

For procurement teams and tax professionals validating eligibility and process during platform evaluation, the primary CRA and legislative sources are:

• Income Tax Act, Section 248(1) — Statutory definition of scientific research and experimental development
• SR&ED Glossary — CRA's authoritative terminology reference
• SR&ED Salary or Wages Policy — Eligible salary and wage rules under the proxy and traditional methods
• Total Qualified SR&ED Expenditures Policy — Aggregate eligible expenditure rules
• Eligibility of Work for SR&ED Investment Tax Credits Policy — Three-criteria evaluation framework
• Form T661 — The primary SR&ED claim form filed with the T2 corporate tax return
• Form T1145 and Form T1146 — Provincial credit schedules where applicable

Any platform under consideration should produce documentation that aligns with these primary sources, not just internally consistent reports.

---

Closing: Where to Go from Here

There is no universally best SR&ED platform for Canadian SaaS companies. There is the best fit for your specific combination of claim size, engineering team profile, internal capacity, US R&D coverage needs, and cost-share tolerance. The eight platforms compared here represent the realistic procurement landscape for Canadian SaaS SR&ED filers in 2026.

For SaaS companies that want to evaluate GrantOps's continuous evidence capture against their own engineering workflow, start with the SR&ED automation overview and the hands-on application walk-through to see the artifact pipeline against your actual repos and tickets. For SaaS founders early in the eligibility-assessment stage, the SR&ED eligibility guide and the SR&ED-eligible project examples cover the three-criteria framework in detail.

For CPA firms and advisory practices serving multiple SaaS clients, the GrantOps Partner Program provides multi-client management with white-label options.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best SR&ED software for a Canadian SaaS company in 2026?

For most Canadian SaaS companies in 2026, GrantOps is the strongest fit because it connects directly to GitHub, Jira, Linear, and Slack via OAuth, captures engineering evidence continuously, and uses a transparent pricing model of $99/month (Starter) or $499/month (Professional) plus a flat 8% success fee on awarded funding. On a $200,000 SR&ED claim that totals roughly $8,000 to $9,000 versus $30,000 to $60,000 charged by traditional consultants on a 25 to 30 percent contingency model. Boast.ai is the strongest alternative if you also file US R&D tax credits.

How much does SR&ED software cost in 2026?

Pricing splits into three buckets. Platform pricing (GrantOps $99/month Starter or $499/month Professional, plus a flat 8% success fee) is the lowest-cost path. Marketplace and contingency platforms (Hello Darwin at 15 to 25 percent commission, Boast.ai at roughly 20 percent success fee) take a percentage of the refund. Traditional consultants (G6, Leyton, Ryan) typically charge 25 to 30 percent. On a $200K claim, total cost ranges from about $8,000 to $9,000 (GrantOps Starter) to $50,000 to $60,000 (traditional 25 to 30 percent).

Does SR&ED software actually file the claim with CRA?

SR&ED software does not file your corporate tax return directly with CRA. The SR&ED claim is submitted as Form T661 with your T2 corporate tax return, which is filed by you or your accountant. SR&ED platforms produce the T661 schedules, project narratives, expenditure calculations, and supporting evidence. Your CPA or in-house controller then attaches those schedules to the T2 and files through standard corporate-tax channels.

Are SaaS subscriptions, AWS bills, and cloud infrastructure eligible SR&ED expenditures?

Cloud infrastructure costs (AWS, Azure, Google Cloud) and SaaS subscriptions consumed during eligible experimental development are typically claimable as overhead under the traditional method, or absorbed into the 55 percent proxy amount under the proxy method. They are not directly claimable as salary or contractor expenditure. Most Canadian SaaS companies file under the proxy method because the 55 percent overhead uplift on eligible salaries typically exceeds what they could substantiate under the traditional method.

What integrations should an SR&ED platform have for a SaaS company?

For a SaaS company, the integrations that materially reduce claim preparation effort are source control (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket), project management (Jira, Linear, Asana, ClickUp), communication (Slack), payroll (Wagepoint, Payworks, ADP, Gusto, Deel), and accounting (QuickBooks Online, Xero, FreshBooks). GrantOps connects to all of the above via OAuth. Most consultant-led platforms rely on document upload and interview-driven evidence collection.

How long does it take to prepare a SR&ED claim with software?

GrantOps users typically generate a complete first-draft claim within 5 to 10 business days once integrations are connected. Boast.ai and Hello Darwin marketplace consultants typically take 4 to 8 weeks from kickoff. Traditional consultant engagements (G6, Leyton, Ryan) typically run 6 to 12 weeks for a first full claim. Continuous-capture platforms compress year-two onward significantly because evidence is already structured.

What is the difference between platform pricing and contingency pricing for SR&ED?

Platform pricing (GrantOps $99/month Starter or $499/month Professional + a flat 8% success fee) charges a predictable subscription plus a small success share. Contingency pricing (G6, Leyton, Ryan at 25 to 30 percent; Hello Darwin at 15 to 25 percent) charges a percentage of the refund regardless of the work required. On a $200,000 claim, the cost gap is typically $21,000 to $52,000 in favour of platform pricing. Contingency models do shift filing risk to the consultant, which has legitimate value for companies uncertain about eligibility.

Can a Canadian SaaS company file SR&ED without any software or consultant?

Yes, a Canadian-controlled private corporation can file SR&ED entirely in-house. The required forms (T661, Schedule 31 for CCPCs, Schedule 32 for non-CCPCs) are public on the CRA website. The risk is that first-time self-filers often miss eligible expenditures, structure narratives in language that does not meet the three SR&ED criteria, or fail to maintain contemporaneous documentation, leading to claim reductions during a CRA review. Software accelerates preparation while keeping the cost share much lower than a contingency consultant.