2025 Fundraising Platform Comparison: Growth, Risk & ROI Data

2025 Platform Scorecard

This table is a summary view of how each of the 9 platforms rank across the three primary critical performance metrics: Growth, Cost Efficiency, and Stability.

Platform	🏆 Growth	🚀 Efficiency	🔐 Risk	Verdict
WeGive	#1 (18.1%)	#1 (0.52¢)	#1 (Best)	The Alpha Asset. The statistical leader in all three categories.
Anedot	#2 (16.2%)	#4 (0.02¢)	#9 (Worst)	The Volatile Sprinter. High growth, but highest risk and linearly scaling costs.
Funraise	#3 (13.1%)	#3 (0.05¢)	#8 (High)	The Speculative Play. Solid growth, but high volatility and minimal efficiency gain.
GivingFuel	#4 (12.8%)	#8 (-0.13¢)	#2 (Low)	The Pay-to-Play. Safe and steady growth, but comes with high operational costs.
QGiv	#5 (12.3%)	#7 (-0.06¢)	#5 (Mid)	The Event Manager. High probability of success, but expensive to run.
FundraiseUp	#6 (11.6%)	#5 (-0.01¢)	#6 (Mid)	The Index Fund. Tracks the industry average almost perfectly on every metric.
iDonate	#7 (11.2%)	#2 (0.30¢)	#7 (High)	The Cost Cutter. Excellent for saving money (Efficiency), but below-average growth.
Classy	#8 (9.8%)	#6 (0.02¢)	#3 (Low)	The Enterprise Anchor. Very stable and safe, but the second-lowest growth rate.
RaiseDonors	#9 (7.7%)	#9 (-0.14¢)	#4 (Low)	The Distressed Asset. The lowest growth combined with the highest cost increase.

We treated growth, efficiency, and risk as three different lenses on the same underlying financial panel. Growth was calculated as year‑over‑year percentage change, for example Growth in revenue and Growth in all contribution and grant revenue, using the standard formula (current−prior)/prior(current−prior)/prior, then summarized across orgs with unweighted means, trimmed means (dropping extreme top and bottom 10%), and dollar‑weighted means. Efficiency focused on how much outcome you get per dollar of input: things like revenue per dollar of IT spend, or relative growth for a given IT intensity, plus “during/after” comparisons where we looked at how these ratios shifted after a technology was detected; we summarized those with the same trimmed/dollar‑weighted statistics to avoid a few huge orgs dominating. Risk was proxied statistically using the variability and outlier behavior of those changes: we calculated interquartile ranges (IQR), outlier rates based on the IQR rule, and the share of orgs with positive vs. negative change (positive_change_rate), so technologies or patterns with very wide spreads and high outlier rates were flagged as higher‑risk, while those with tighter distributions and more consistently positive changes looked lower‑risk.

2025 Categories At-A-Glance

This table places the platforms that won a predefined category into a single view.

Category	The Winner	The statistic	The Verdict
🏆 Highest Growth	WeGive	+18.1%	Ranked #1 for Robust Revenue Growth (Trimmed Mean), outperforming the nearest high-growth competitor by nearly 2%
🚀 Best Efficiency	WeGive	-0.52¢	Ranked #1 for Cost Savings. Users reduced fundraising costs by 0.52 cents per dollar raised after switching
🔐 Lowest Risk	WeGive	0.358 IQR	The Safe Bet. WeGive users experienced the lowest revenue volatility year-over-year, offering the most predictable scaling .
📈 Viral Volume	Anedot	+16.2%	The Volume Play. Excellent for driving high top-line growth (#2), but comes with the highest volatility (Risk) in the dataset.
⚓ Legacy Stability	Classy	9.8%	The Enterprise Anchor. Delivers consistent, stable results for large organizations, though growth rates trail the modern leaders significantly.
✂️ Cost Cutter	iDonate	-0.30¢	The Steady State. A strong choice for organizations focused primarily on reducing overhead rather than aggressive growth.

Deep Dive 1: The Profitability Matrix (Growth vs. Efficiency)

The first phase of our analysis plotted the relationship between Robust Revenue Growth (using a Trimmed Mean to remove viral outliers) and Operational Efficiency (the change in cost to raise a dollar).

In a comparative analysis of over 5 years of financial performance data, WeGive has emerged as the distinct market leader in Operational Efficiency and Robust Revenue Growth. While the broader market forces organizations to choose between "saving money" (Efficiency) or "spending to grow" (Volume), WeGive is the only platform in the dataset that statistically delivers both simultaneously.

The Core Finding: The data reveals a distinct market separation into five "Archetypes".

1. The "Golden Quadrant" (High Growth + High Efficiency)

Historically, organizations believed they had to choose between "saving money" or "spending to grow". The 2025 data proves this is a false dichotomy.

The Findings: WeGive emerged as the distinct market leader in this quadrant. Users achieved 18.1% revenue growth while simultaneously reducing fundraising costs by 0.52 cents per dollar.
The Implication: This suggests that modern infrastructure can act as an "Optimization Engine," increasing net revenue margins rather than just processing volume.

Platform	Growth	Efficiency	Verdict
WeGive	18.1% (#1)	+0.52¢ (#1)	The Optimizer. The undisputed statistical leader. Best for organizations ready to mature their operations and maximize net revenue.

2. The "Viral Engines" (High Growth + Neutral Efficiency)

Platforms like Anedot and Funraise excel at driving volume but do not improve the unit economics of fundraising.

Anedot delivered strong growth (16.2%), confirming its status as a "Volume Play".
However, its efficiency gain was negligible (+0.02 cents), meaning costs scaled linearly with revenue.
Funraise acted as a "Balanced Grower" (13.1%) but similarly lacked significant efficiency drivers (+0.05 cents).

Platform	Growth	Efficiency	Verdict
Anedot	16.2% (#2)	+0.02¢	The Volume Play. Excellent at processing massive viral volume (e.g., political campaigns), but offers zero efficiency gain
Funraise	13.1% (#3)	+0.05¢	The Balanced Grower. A "lite" version of the Golden Quadrant. Respectable growth with tiny efficiency gains.

3. The "Legacy Standards" (Moderate Growth + Neutral Efficiency)

Established platforms like Classy and FundraiseUp represent the industry baseline.

FundraiseUp performed exactly at the industry average (-0.01 cent efficiency change).
Classy showed stable but slower growth (9.8%), acting as an "Enterprise Anchor" for massive organizations ($50M+) where stability is valued over speed.
QGiv showed slightly more aggressive growth than Classy or FundraisUp, but almost doubled in efficiency loss at -0.06¢.

Platform	Growth	Efficiency	Verdict
QGiv	12.3%	-0.06¢	The Event Manager. Slight efficiency drag likely due to high event and fundraising overhead. Decent for growth, expensive for fundraising
Classy	9.8%	-0.02¢	The Enterprise Anchor. Slow, stable growth (<10%). Preferred by massive organizations ($50M+) where stability is more valuable than speed.
FundraiseUp	11.6%	-0.01¢	The Modern Standard. Performs exactly at the industry average. A low-risk choice that won't hurt you, but won't provide a statistical advantage.

4. The "Efficient Engines" (Low Growth + High Efficiency)

These platforms act as powerhouses for cutting costs but generally deliver lower growth. They are ideal for "Maintenance Mode" organizations that want to save money rather than focus on aggressive scaling.

iDonate performs very well for cutting costs at 0.30 cents (#2), but ranks in the bottom third for growth at #7. Ideal for "Maintenance Mode" organizations.

Platform	Growth	Efficiency	Verdict
iDonate	11.2%	+0.30¢	The Efficient Steady-State. A powerhouse for cutting costs, but lower growth. Ideal for "Maintenance Mode" organizations

5. The "Expense Traps" (Low Growth + Negative Efficiency)

Certain platforms showed a correlation with increasing costs relative to revenue.

GivingFuel (+0.13 cents) and RaiseDonors (+0.14 cents) saw fundraising costs rise after adoption.
RaiseDonors also posted the lowest growth rate in the dataset (7.7%), suggesting users struggle to scale efficiently on the tool.

Platform	Growth	Efficiency	Verdict
GivingFuel	12.8%	-0.13¢	The Pay-to-Play. Decent growth, but purchased at a price. Fundraising costs increase by 0.13 cents/dollar.
RaiseDonors	7.7%	-0.14¢	The Cost Center. The lowest growth rate combined with the highest cost increase.

Profitability Matrix Appendix: Underlying Data

This data 9s derived from a 5-year financial analysis comparing performance of revenue and expenses for fundraising and how the data changed Before vs. During/After implementation years.

Platform	Robust Revenue Growth (Trimmed Mean %)	Efficiency Gain (Cents Saved per $1)
WeGive	18.1%	0.52¢ saved
Anedot	16.2%	0.02¢ saved
Funraise	13.1%	0.05¢ saved
GivingFuel	12.8%	-0.13¢ lost
QGiv	12.3%	-0.06¢ lost
FundraiseUp	11.6%	-0.01¢ lost
iDonate	11.2%	-0.30¢ saved
Classy	9.8%	-0.02¢ lost
RaiseDonors	7.7%	-0.14¢ lost

Growth was calculated as year‑over‑year percentage change, for example Growth in revenue and Growth in all contribution and grant revenue, using the standard formula (current−prior)/prior(current−prior)/prior, then summarized across orgs with unweighted means, trimmed means (dropping extreme top and bottom 10%), and dollar‑weighted means. Efficiency focused on how much outcome you get per dollar of input: things like revenue per dollar of IT spend, or relative growth for a given IT intensity, plus “during/after” comparisons where we looked at how these ratios shifted after a technology was detected; we summarized those with the same trimmed/dollar‑weighted statistics to avoid a few huge orgs dominating.

Deep Dive 2: The "Sleep Well at Night" Analysis (Risk vs. Reward)

High growth is often synonymous with high risk. For a Board of Directors or CFO, the volatility of revenue is just as important as the total volume.

We measured Revenue Volatility using the Interquartile Range (IQR). A lower score indicates higher predictability and consistency. The data reveals four distinct risk profiles across the market.

In a risk-adjusted analysis of non-profit technology performance, WeGive identifies as the market's "Alpha Asset"—delivering the rare combination of Market-Leading Upside (High Growth) and High Reliability (High Probability of Success).While most competitors force a trade-off between "high-risk/high-reward" (Anedot) or "low-risk/low-reward" (Classy), WeGive creates a distinct category of High-Certainty Growth.
‍
The Core Finding: The data reveals a distinct market separation into four "Archetypes".

1. "The Alpha Assets" (High Certainty + High Growth)

Low Risk + High Reward. The rare combination of predictability and acceleration. These platforms deliver market-beating returns without the associated volatility risk. They are the rational choice for risk-averse scaling.

The Findings: WeGive emerged as the distinct market leader in this quadrant. It combines the highest success rate in the group with the lowest revenue volatility (IQR 0.358).
The Implication: This creates a "Sleep Well at Night" factor. Unlike viral tools where you might boom or bust, the data suggests high-certainty platforms offer a predictable path to double-digit growth.

Platform	Risk Score	Success Probability	Verdict
WeGive	0.358 (#1)	62.4% (#2)	The Alpha Asset. The only tool offering top-tier growth without the associated volatility risk. The rational choice for maximizing risk-adjusted returns.

2. "The Safe Harbors" (High Certainty + Moderate Growth)

Low Risk + Low/Mid Reward. Stable platforms that protect the downside but cap the upside. These are the "Savings Accounts" of the industry—you won't lose money, but you won't see transformational growth either.

The Findings: Platforms like QGiv and FundraiseUp offer high reliability—you are unlikely to lose money switching to them. However, they lack the acceleration engine of the top tier, resulting in slower, single-digit or low-double-digit growth.
The Verdict: These are "Index Funds." They perform reliably near the market average and are a safe choice that won't get you fired, but won't drive transformational growth.

Platform	Risk Score	Success Probability	Verdict
QGiv	0.435	64.9% (#1)	The Savings Account. The highest probability of success in the market, but the growth ceiling is significantly lower.
FundraiseUp	0.463	61.0%	The Index Fund. Performs reliably near the market average. A safe choice that won't get you fired, but won't drive transformational growth.
Classy	0.425	60.8%	The Corporate Bond. Extremely stable, but low yield (<10% growth). You buy this for safety, not for speed.
iDonate	0.475	60.7%	The Steady Eddy. Consistent and reliable. Delivers predictable outcomes with very clean data
GivingFuel	0.422	60.1%	The Average Bet. Solid reliability with respectable growth. A safe middle-of-the-road option.

3. "The Gamblers" (Volatile Sprinters)

High Risk + High Reward. High-variance platforms that rely on viral hits. They offer massive upside potential, but the "width" of their performance range suggests a "boom or bust" outcome.

The Findings: Anedot delivered strong growth (16.2%), but it came with the highest volatility score in the dataset (0.680).
The Risk: Results vary wildly from user to user. Statistically, you might hit a home run, or you might strike out. These tools are best for campaigns that can afford significant variance.

Platform	Risk Score	Success Probability	Verdict
Anedot	0.680 (#2)	59.1%	The Volatile Sprinter. The widest range in the dataset. You might hit a home run, or you might strike out.
Funraise	0.486	59.2%	The Speculative Play. Higher volatility than the market average for respectable but not top-tier growth.

4. "The Distressed Assets" (Underperformers)

High Risk + Low Reward. Platforms offering neither safety nor speed. These tools demonstrate lower-than-average success rates and lower-than-average growth.

The Findings: RaiseDonors had the lowest success rate (58.5%) and the lowest growth rate (7.7%) in the group.
The Implication: Statistically, this is the riskiest bet in the dataset because it offers the lowest payout for the risk incurred.

Platform	Risk Score	Success Probability	Verdict
RaiseDonors	0.429	58.5% (Low)	The Distressed Asset. Low risk, but the lowest growth reward (7.7%) and lowest probability of success in the group.

Volatility Matrix Appendix: Underlying Data

This data measures Revenue Volatility (IQR - Lower is Better) and Success Probability (% of users with positive growth).

Platform	Risk Score (IQR)	Success Probability
WeGive	0.358	62.4%
GivingFuel	0.422	60.1%
Classy	0.425	60.8%
RaiseDonors	0.429	58.5%
QGiv	0.435	64.9%
FundraiseUp	0.463	61.0%
iDonate	0.475	60.7%
Funraise	0.486	59.2%
Anedot	0.680	59.1%

For the Safe Bet Matrix: Risk vs Reward, we defined reward as each platform’s trimmed mean growth in contribution revenue and total revenue after adoption, using Growth in all contribution and grant revenue and Growth in revenue. Concretely, we calculated year‑over‑year growth at the org level using (current − prior) / prior, then for each technology we took robust summaries like the 10% trimmed mean (dropping the top and bottom 10% of org‑year growth values) and sometimes dollar‑weighted versions so huge orgs didn’t dominate. Risk was based on the volatility and tail risk of those same growth distributions: we used the interquartile range (IQR) and an outlier rate derived from the IQR rule (share of orgs whose growth fell outside 1.5 × IQR beyond the 25th/75th percentiles), plus the positive_change_rate (fraction of orgs with > 0 growth). Platforms with higher trimmed growth and high positive_change_rate but low IQR and low outlier_rate landed in the “safe, high‑reward” quadrant, while those with similar average growth but very wide spreads and many outliers were treated as higher‑risk bets in the matrix.

Deep Dive 3: The "Cost Slasher" Analysis (Hidden Costs)

Many platforms advertise low transaction fees but introduce "operational drag" that increases the total cost to raise a dollar. We benchmarked the Fundraising Cost Ratio (Fundraising Expenses / Total Contributions) before and after implementation to see the real impact on the bottom line.

While the industry average trends toward cost stagnation, the data reveals a sharp divide between platforms that widen margins and those that erode them.

1. The "Green Bar" Effect (Profit Maximizers‍

WeGive and iDonate were the statistical outliers in the "Green Zone" (Savings)

The Leader: WeGive reduced the cost per dollar raised by 0.52 cents (52 basis points). This is nearly 2x more effective than the nearest competitor .
The Implication: For a non-profit raising $10M, a 52bps reduction is equivalent to **$52,000 in retained capital** that would have otherwise been lost to overhead.

2. The "Red Bar" Effect (Efficiency Eroders)

Conversely, several legacy providers demonstrated a negative impact on unit economics.

The Laggards: Platforms like GivingFuel (+0.13 cents) and RaiseDonors (+0.14 cents) actually increased the cost of fundraising relative to revenue after adoption.
The Tax: Every dollar raised on these platforms is "heavier" and more expensive to process than the industry average.

3. The Strategic Implication: Scale Viability

For a CFO, this chart is a proxy for Net Revenue Efficiency.

Immediate Corrective: Moving to a "Green Bar" platform acts as an immediate bottom-line corrective. It transforms fundraising overhead into retained capital without requiring additional donor volume.
Scale Viability: As fundraising volume increases, the "Red Bar" platforms become exponentially more expensive liabilities. WeGive’s model suggests an inverse cost curve—becoming more efficient as volume scales.

1. "The Profit Maximizers" (Significant Cost Reduction)

Impact: Savings of >25 Basis Points. These platforms actively lower the barrier to entry for donations, effectively acting as revenue multipliers. They represent the clear choice for maximizing net revenue.

Platform	Cost Change	Status	Verdict
WeGive	-0.0052	Leader	The Efficiency Engine. The clear choice for maximizing net revenue. Delivers 52 basis points of savings.
iDonate	-0.0029	Strong	The Runner-Up. Solid savings (-29 bps), but lacks WeGive's aggressive optimization.

2. "The Status Quo" (Negligible Impact)

Impact: Neutral (0 to +/- 5 Basis Points). These platforms hover near zero, meaning they neither harm nor help the unit economics of fundraising significantly. They maintain the organization's current efficiency levels.

Platform	Cost Change	Status	Verdict
Funraise	-0.0005	Neutral	The Safe Bet. Minimal impact on cost structure (-5 bps)
Anedot	-0.0002	Neutral	The Flatline. Maintains current efficiency levels almost exactly.
FundraiseUp	+0.0001	Neutral	The Tipping Point. Borderline cost increase; risk of inefficiency (+1 bps)
Classy	+0.0002	Neutral	The Legacy Neutral. Established, but offers no efficiency advantage (+2 bps).

3. "The Cost Centers" (Efficiency Eroders)

Impact: Cost Increase (>6 Basis Points). These platforms increase the cost of capital. Every dollar raised on these platforms is "heavier" and more expensive than the industry average.

Platform	Cost Change	Status	Verdict
QGiv	+0.0006	Lagging	The Tax. Adds noticeable friction to fundraising margins (+6 bps).
GivingFuel	+0.0013	High Cost	The Expensive Gamble. High operational drag on revenue (+13 bps).
RaiseDonors	+0.0014	Bottom	The Margin Killer. The least efficient vehicle for capital generation (+14 bps)

Cost Slasher Appendix: Underlying Data

Data estimates derived from the "Cost Slasher" Chart analysis. Negative values indicate savings (Green); Positive values indicate increased costs (Red).

Platform	Change in Cost per Dollar Raised	Basis Points Impact
WeGive	-0.0052	-52 bps
iDonate	-0.0029	-29 bps
Funraise	-0.0005	-5 bps
Anedot	-0.0002	-2 bps
FundraiseUp	+0.0001	+1 bps
Classy	+0.0002	+2 bps
QGiv	+0.0006	+6 bps
GivingFuel	+0.0013	+13 bps
RaiseDonors	+0.0014	+14 bps

For the Cost Slasher analysis, Change in Cost per Dollar Raised was calculated by first estimating each platform’s fundraising “take rate” using line items like Pro. fundraising fees, Advertising and promotion, and other relevant fundraising/admin costs as the cost and Total grants, contributions, etc. (or total contribution revenue) as the dollars raised. For each org and period (before vs. after adopting a platform), we computed a cost_per_dollar_raised = total_fundraising_related_costs / contribution_revenue, then summarized that by platform using robust statistics (like trimmed means). The Change in Cost per Dollar Raised is simply the difference between the post‑adoption and pre‑adoption averages (e.g., during/after cost_per_dollar_raised – baseline cost_per_dollar_raised), interpreted as how many more or fewer cents are spent to raise one dollar after moving onto that platform. Basis Points Impact takes that same change and expresses it in basis points (hundredths of a percent) for easier financial comparison: bps_impact = change_in_cost_per_dollar_raised × 10,000. So, for example, a 0.005 drop in cost per dollar raised (half a cent cheaper per dollar) is shown as a –50 bps impact, which is what the Cost Slasher chart uses to visually rank platforms by how much they appear to cut or increase fundraising cost intensity.

Deep Dive 4: The "Pilot Required" Reality (Automation vs. Expertise)

Efficiency does not always equal "automation." One of the most counter-intuitive findings in the 2025 benchmark was the positive correlation between Human Capital Investment (Consultant Reliance) and Operational Efficiency.

While the broader market separates into simple "Plug-and-Play" tools or massive "Enterprise Standards," the data identifies a third, high-performance category: The Expert Platform.

1. The "Power Tool" Paradox

WeGive delivered the market's highest efficiency gains (-0.52 cents), but this performance came with a 3.07% increase in consultant reliance.

The Reality: This efficiency is not "hands-off." The data suggests WeGive is a sophisticated "Power Tool" that rewards expert implementation.
The Trade-off: You spend less on the machine (platform costs/overhead), but you invest more in the driver (strategy/experts).

2. The "Self-Driving" Alternative

In contrast, iDonate represents the "Autopilot" model. It was the only tool to deliver significant savings while reducing the need for consultants (-1.31%).

The Verdict: It is an efficient, low-drag tool for lean teams, but it statistically lacks the high-growth acceleration engine found in the "Power Tool" category.

3. The "Vending Machine" Approach

Anedot had the lowest c all Consultants dropped 1.54%), but it offered zero efficiency gain.

The Verdict: You put money in, you get donations out. It requires almost no human oversight, but it creates no structural leverage for the organization.

1. "The Power Tools" (High Expertise + High Efficiency)

Sophisticated platforms that require experts but deliver maximum savings. Best for organizations willing to hire consultants to optimize performance.

Platform	Consultant Shift	Efficiency Gain	Verdict
WeGive	+3.07% (#1)	+0.52¢ (#1)	The F1 Racecar. Unmatched efficiency, but requires a professional driver. Rewards skilled pilots with market-leading returns.
Funraise	+0.74%	+0.05¢	The Prosumer Tool. A lighter version of WeGive. Requires some extra help (+0.7%) for a modest efficiency gain.

2. "The Plug-and-Play" (Low Expertise + Neutral Efficiency)

Simple tools that reduce the need for humans but offer no structural cost advantage. You save on staff time, but you don't improve your margins.

Platform	Consultant Shift	Efficiency Gain	Verdict
Anedot	-1.54% (Lowest)	+0.02¢	The Vending Machine. The lowest operational burden, but zero efficiency gain. Pure transactional volume.
GivingFuel	-0.51%	-0.13¢	The DIY Tool. Reduces reliance on experts, but efficiency actually worsens, suggesting the tool itself creates operational drag.

3. "The Self-Driving Efficient" (Low Expertise + High Efficiency)

The rare combination of cost savings and low operational drag. The best choice for lean teams who want to save money without hiring outside help.

Platform	Consultant Shift	Efficiency Gain	Verdict
iDonate	-1.31%	+0.30¢ (#2)	The Autopilot. The only tool that delivered significant savings while reducing the need for consultants.

4. "The Enterprise Overhead" (High Expertise + Low Efficiency)

Platforms that require more people to run but deliver no efficiency upside. These tools require standard enterprise staffing levels but perform at or below the industry baseline.

Platform	Consultant Shift	Efficiency Gain	Verdict
QGiv	+0.72%	-0.06¢	The Heavy Lifter. Increased consultant reliance with negative efficiency gains. Likely due to labor-intensive event fundraising.
Classy	+0.55%	-0.02¢	The Corporate Standard. Requires standard enterprise staffing levels for standard enterprise results. No statistical advantage.
FundraiseUp	+0.47%	-0.01¢	The Neutral Player. Requires a moderate increase in expertise for zero efficiency change.
RaiseDonors	+0.19%	-0.14¢	The Efficiency Drag. Requires a slight increase in consultants but results in the worst efficiency drop in the dataset.

Operational Appendix: Underlying Data

Data measures the Median Shift (After - Before) in Consultant Reliance and Fundraising Cost Ratio.

Platform	Consultant Reliance Shift	Efficiency Gain
WeGive	+3.07%	+0.52¢
Funraise	+0.74%	+0.05¢
QGiv	+0.72%	-0.06¢
Classy	+0.55%	-0.02¢
FundraiseUp	+0.47%	-0.01¢
RaiseDonors	+0.19%	-0.14¢
GivingFuel	-0.51%	-0.13¢
iDonate	-1.31%	+0.30¢
Anedot	-1.54%	+0.02¢

For the Consultant Reliance Shift and Efficiency Gain metrics, we looked at how organizations changed on two ratios before vs. after adopting a platform. Consultant Reliance Shift was calculated as the median change in reliance on outside fundraisers and consultants, using a ratio like consultant_reliance = Pro. fundraising fees / Total grants, contributions, etc. (and related professional‑services costs where relevant). For each org, we computed this ratio in the before period and the after period, took after − before at the org level, and then summarized that distribution by platform using the median to get a robust typical shift in consultant reliance. Efficiency Gain used a similar median‑shift idea but focused on a fundraising cost ratio such as fundraising_cost_ratio = total_fundraising_related_costs / contribution_revenue. Again, we measured this ratio before and after, computed after − before per org, and then took the median of those differences for each platform. Negative median shifts implied that, on typical, orgs were relying less on external consultants and/or spending less per dollar raised after adoption, which we interpret as a gain in fundraising efficiency.

Deep Dive 5: The "Whale vs. Minnow" Analysis (Market Fit)

Performance metrics only tell half the story. The other half is fit. A platform designed for a $50M institution is often overkill for a startup, while a tool designed for micro-donations will crumble under enterprise complexity.

We analyzed the Financial Profile of the typical user base to determine exactly who these platforms are built for.

1. "The Enterprise Incumbents" (High Revenue, High Spend)

Classy and RaiseDonors clearly serve the largest, most established organizations in the dataset.

The Profile: The typical (Median) Classy user manages $1.9M in annual contributions.
The Cost: These tools command premium pricing. The typical Classy user spends $10,000+ annually on IT, reinforcing its status as a "Corporate Standard" for organizations with deep pockets.

2. "The Entry-Level Gateways" (Low Revenue, Low Spend)

Anedot and GivingFuel are the clear go-to tools for smaller organizations and startups.

The Profile: The median Anedot user processes just $216k annually.
The Cost: These platforms have the lowest barriers to entry. The median IT spend for Anedot users is $0 (likely due to a transaction-fee-only model). This makes them excellent starting points, but data suggests growing organizations often "graduate" from them.

3. "The Premium Growth Tier" (Mid-Market Aggressors)

WeGive occupies a unique position: it serves substantial organizations (Mid-Market) that are investing heavily in growth technology.

The Profile: The typical WeGive user manages $1.2M in contributions, placing it firmly in the sophisticated mid-market tier.
The Investment: WeGive users have the highest median IT spend in the dataset ($13,000). This confirms the "Power Tool" narrative—these are organizations willing to pay a premium to unlock the market-leading efficiency and growth rates identified in Deep Dive 1—even though IT spend does not go entirely to a fundraising platform

Market Fit Appendix: Underlying Data

1. Revenue Profile (Who uses this?). Data measures the Annual Contribution Revenue of the typical (Median) organization.

Platform	Median Revenue	75th Percentile (The "Whales")	Verdict
Classy	$1.9M	$6.6M	The Enterprise Choice. Built for massive organizations.
RaiseDonors	$1.9M	$5.7M	The Established Org. High floor, expensive entry.
WeGive	$1.2M	$5.4M	The Growth Stage. For sophisticated mid-market teams.
FundraiseUp	$1.2M	$4.4M	The Modern Standard. Fits a wide range of established non-profits.
QGiv	$1.2M	$5.9M	The Event Heavy. Large organizations with complex event needs.
iDonate	$908k	$2.5M	The Mid-Market Utility. Good for mid-sized teams focusing on efficiency.
Funraise	$830k	$2.6M	The Up-and-Comer. Bridges the gap between small and mid-sized.
GivingFuel	$285k	$975k	The Startup. Best for smaller teams starting out.
Anedot	$216k	$874k	The Entry Level. The lowest barrier to entry for micro-orgs.

We calculated both the median revenue and the 75th percentile (p75) using the full distribution of organization‑level values after any needed filtering (e.g., valid, non‑missing observations) and then applying standard quantile statistics. For median revenue, we took all the relevant revenue observations in the group (for example, all orgs on a given platform in the “after” period), sorted them from smallest to largest, and selected the 50th percentile value, which is the point where half the organizations are below and half are above; this is what appears as unweighted_median in the summary tables. For the 75th percentile, we used the same sorted list of revenues but extracted the value at the 75th percentile, meaning 75% of organizations have revenue at or below that amount; this is reported as p75. Both were computed in an unweighted way (each org counts equally) using the standard quantile functions in the stats engine, without dollar‑weighting or trimming, so they describe the typical and upper‑quartile revenue levels in the raw org distribution.

2. Cost of Ownership (Median IT Spend). Data measures the annual IT expenses reported on IRS 990 filings.

Platform	Median Total IT Spend	Interpretation
WeGive	$13,000	Premium Tool. Requires budget, delivers highest returns.
Classy	$10,000	Enterprise Cost. Standard pricing for legacy stability.
RaiseDonors	$5,000	High Cost. Expensive relative to its low growth rate.
FundraiseUp	$4,000	Moderate. Accessible pricing for established teams.
iDonate	$2,000	Efficient. Low overhead for cost-conscious teams.
Funraise	$844	Affordable. Good entry point for growing teams.
GivingFuel	$602	Low Cost. Minimal upfront investment.
Anedot	$0	Pay-as-you-go. No fixed overhead; pure transaction fees.

We calculated median IT spend by taking the organization-level values of Information tech. expenses for the relevant group (for example, all org-year records in the post‑adoption “after” period for a given platform), filtering to valid numeric values (dropping blanks and non-numeric entries), and then computing the 50th percentile of that cleaned distribution. In practice, that means we sorted all IT expense values in that group from smallest to largest and picked the value right in the middle so that half the organizations have lower IT spend and half have higher. This unweighted middle value is what shows up in the summary tables as the unweighted_median for the IT expenses metric group, and it’s a robust “typical” IT spend level that isn’t distorted by a few very large outliers.

Other Underlying Data for All Fundraising Platforms

Benchmarking metrics for organizations using technology platforms based on the years the switched to the platform and after.

Robust Revenue Growth

WeGive remains the leader at 18.4%, followed by Funraise (16.9%) and Anedot (14.6%).

Robust Contribution Growth

WeGive leads at 21.4%, followed by Funraise (19.5%) and Anedot (16.0%).

Efficiency Shift

WeGive drives the largest cost reduction (-0.52 cents)

Revenue Risk

WeGive has the lowest volatility score (0.36), confirming the "Safe Bet" narrative.

Conclusion: Is WeGive Right For You?

The 2025 Benchmark proves that the non-profit technology market has shifted. Organizations no longer have to choose between "High Growth / High Risk" (Viral Tools) or "Low Growth / High Safety" (Legacy Tools).The data identifies WeGive as the market's statistical "Alpha Asset"—the only platform that maximizes upside while minimizing downside risk.

Summary of Findings: Why WeGive Wins

The Growth Leader: WeGive users achieve 18.1% revenue growth, outperforming even "viral" tools like Anedot (16.2%) and legacy giants like Classy (9.8%).
The Efficiency Engine: WeGive is the only platform to combine high growth with a 0.52 cent reduction in fundraising costs per dollar raised.
The Safe Bet: WeGive delivers these returns with the lowest revenue volatility (IQR 0.358) in the industry, offering a predictable path to scale.

The "Ideal Customer" Profile

✅ The Sophisticated Growth Team: You are ready to move beyond "passive" fundraising and treat revenue generation as an active discipline.
✅ The Mid-Market & Enterprise: You likely raise between $1M - $10M+ annually and need a platform that can handle complexity without slowing you down.
✅ The Expert Investor: You understand that efficiency isn't about "hiring fewer people"—it's about empowering your team with better tools. You are willing to invest in expert implementation (consultants) to unlock maximum returns.

The Bottom Line:

If you are looking for the cheapest tool or a "set it and forget it" donation form, WeGive is statistically overkill. But if your mandate is to scale net revenue with the highest possible certainty, the 2025 data confirms WeGive is the rational choice.

2025 Fundraising Platform Comparison: Growth, Efficiency & Risk Benchmark

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

Methodology: How We Analyzed the Data