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 voordekunst

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 →
voordekunst logo
voordekunst
EU · 1 countries

Dutch and Flemish artists, creative makers, and cultural institutions running concrete, project-based campaigns who value sector specialization and hands-on crowdfunding coaching.

No rating yet
Read full review →
The headline

On a €100 donation, Alvarum delivers €6.32 more to the recipient than voordekunst.

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

Our verdict

What the data says.

Paying by Credit card, Alvarum delivers about €6.32 more of every €100 donated than voordekunst (€97.85 vs €91.53).

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

The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric Alvarum voordekunst
Recipient gets (€100) €97.85★ winner €91.53
Platform fee 0%★ winner 8.47%
Payment processing fee 1.9% + €0.25★ winner 0% + €0.00
Trustpilot — (0) — (0)
Country coverage 0 countries 1 countries★ winner
Data residency France EU★ winner
Languages 2★ winner 1
Payment methods supported 1★ winner 0
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
Alvarum

€97.85 vs €91.53 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Tied

— vs — on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
voordekunst

1 vs 0 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
voordekunst

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 voordekunst if

Dutch and Flemish artists, creative makers, and cultural institutions running concrete, project-based campaigns who value sector specialization and hands-on crowdfunding coaching.

  • Deep specialization in arts and culture with vetted, project-based campaigns.
  • Operated by a CBF-recognized charitable foundation with funds held in trust.
  • Hands-on coaching, workshops, and editorial guidance for campaign makers.
  • Supports iDEAL, credit card, PayPal, plus Bancontact, Maestro, and Sofort.
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 voordekunst?

On a €100 donation, Alvarum delivers approximately €97.85 to the recipient and voordekunst delivers approximately €91.53. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

voordekunst 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; voordekunst 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 →