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 · 2026-06-08 Ownership disclosure
Head-to-head

Alvarum vs iHelp

Alvarum logo
Alvarum
France · 0 countries

French and European charities and associations running cause-based or sports-challenge fundraising who want donations paid directly to the beneficiary and support for European local payment methods.

No rating yet
Read full review →
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 →
The headline

On a €100 donation, iHelp delivers €2.15 more to the recipient than Alvarum.

Alvarum & iHelp don’t process payments in GBP — pricing shown in EUR.

Our verdict

What the data says.

Paying by Credit card, iHelp delivers about €2.15 more of every €100 donated than Alvarum (€100.00 vs €97.85).

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

The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric Alvarum iHelp
Recipient gets (€100) €97.85 €100.00★ winner
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 1.9% + €0.25 0% + €0.00★ winner
Trustpilot — (0) — (0)
Country coverage 0 countries 1 countries★ winner
Data residency France EU★ winner
Languages 2 2
Payment methods supported 1 1
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
iHelp

€100.00 vs €97.85 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Tied

— vs — on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
iHelp

1 vs 0 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
iHelp

EEA data residency for GDPR-sensitive donor data.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose Alvarum if

French and European charities and associations running cause-based or sports-challenge fundraising who want donations paid directly to the beneficiary and support for European local payment methods.

  • Donations are routed directly to the beneficiary charity and settled on an automated monthly cycle rather than held by the platform.
  • Strong fit for sports-challenge and participatory event fundraising such as marathons and cycling events.
  • European local payment methods - iDEAL, Bancontact, Sofort, and SEPA direct debit - alongside Visa and Mastercard cards.
  • Payments handled by HiPay, a payment institution authorised by France's ACPR; Alvarum registered with ORIAS as a donation crowdfunding intermediary.
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, Alvarum or iHelp?

On a €100 donation, Alvarum delivers approximately €97.85 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?

Alvarum operates in 0 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 →