Peer review is valued in higher education, but also widely criticized in terms of potential biases, particularly gender. We evaluate gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications, extending Bornmann, Mutz, and Daniel's meta-analyses that reported small gender differences in favor of men (d = 0.04), but a substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes that compromised the robustness of their results. We contrast these findings with the most comprehensive single primary study (Marsh, Jayasinghe, and Bond) that found no gender differences for grant proposals. We juxtapose traditional (fixed- and random-effects) and multilevel models, demonstrating important advantages to the multilevel approach. Consistent with Marsh et al.'s primary study, there were no gender differences for the 40 (of 66) effect sizes from Bornmann et al. that were based on grant proposals. This lack of a gender effect for grant proposals was very robust, generalizing over country, discipline, and publication year. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)