givingplatforms.com

Language & region

Pick the language you want the site in, and the country you're fundraising in or from. We use this to default the dominant payment method and currency.

Verified · 2026-06-02 Ownership disclosure
Head-to-head

4fund.com vs iHelp

4fund.com logo
4fund.com
— · 30 countries

Individuals, charities, and small organisations across the EEA who want a multilingual, no-commission fundraiser backed by an established Polish crowdfunding operator with EU payment-institution licensing.

iHelp logo
iHelp
EU · 1 countries

Spanish nonprofits and donors who value vetted, legitimacy-checked causes and a commission-light giving model, and who are comfortable with a single Santander payment gateway and a smaller catalogue of campaigns.

No rating yet
Read full review →

Each platform is priced in its own currency: 4fund.com in GBP, iHelp in EUR.

Our verdict

What the data says.

iHelp stores donor data inside the EEA — a practical advantage for GDPR-sensitive campaigns — while 4fund.com does not.

On the headline numbers, 4fund.com and iHelp are closely matched — the better pick comes down to Credit card availability, language coverage, and where your donors are.

The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric 4fund.com iHelp
Recipient gets (per 100) £100.00 €100.00
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 0% + £0.00 0% + €0.00
Trustpilot 3.9 (461)★ winner — (0)
Country coverage 30 countries★ winner 1 countries
Data residency EU★ winner
Languages 30★ winner 2
Payment methods supported 14★ winner 1
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
Tied

Fees are level on a credit-card donation.

Higher Trustpilot rating
4fund.com

3.9 vs — on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
4fund.com

30 vs 1 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
iHelp

EEA data residency for GDPR-sensitive donor data.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose 4fund.com if

Individuals, charities, and small organisations across the EEA who want a multilingual, no-commission fundraiser backed by an established Polish crowdfunding operator with EU payment-institution licensing.

  • Operated by Zrzutka.pl, the company behind Poland's long-established zrzutka.pl crowdfunding platform, with over a decade of experience.
  • Run by an operator that describes itself as an EU-licensed payment services provider supervised by Poland's financial regulator.
  • Charges organisers no commission and takes no cut on deposits or withdrawals; sustained by an optional voluntary donor contribution.
  • Broad European payment-rail support: iDEAL, Bancontact, MultiBanco, MB Way, and EPS, plus cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Revolut Pay, Skrill, N26, and ZEN.
Read full review →
Choose iHelp if

Spanish nonprofits and donors who value vetted, legitimacy-checked causes and a commission-light giving model, and who are comfortable with a single Santander payment gateway and a smaller catalogue of campaigns.

  • No platform commission charged to nonprofits or donors, per iHelp's FAQ.
  • NGOs and causes are vetted for legality and viability before listing.
  • Long heritage in Spanish online giving, continuing Cibersolidaridad.org which ran from 2001.
  • Post-donation follow-up and a stated focus on transparent, effective altruism.
Read full review →
Also consider

A third option.

1%Club

Dutch and other social-impact initiators running Global-Goals-aligned campaigns who value personal coaching and community-building over a high-volume, self-serve crowdfunding marketplace.

More head-to-heads

Other comparisons.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Which is cheaper, 4fund.com or iHelp?

Of every 100 donated, 4fund.com delivers approximately £100.00 to the recipient and iHelp delivers approximately €100.00. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

iHelp is generally better suited to European nonprofits handling GDPR-sensitive donor data because of its EEA data residency.

Which platform has more country coverage?

4fund.com operates in 30 countries; iHelp operates in 1.

How we rank

Rankings are produced by a public editorial methodology — open to peer review. We disclose ownership, scoring weights, and every change.

Read methodology →