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

BetterWorld vs BuonaCausa

BetterWorld logo
BetterWorld
— · 0 countries

Nonprofits, schools, PTOs, and community groups in the US running auctions, raffles, events, and peer-to-peer campaigns that want every fundraising tool available on every plan.

BuonaCausa logo
BuonaCausa
EU · 1 countries

Italian associations, nonprofits, and individuals who want a no-commission way to collect donations directly into their own accounts, and campaigners who pair fundraising with online petitions and activism.

No rating yet
Read full review →
The headline

Of every 100 donated, BuonaCausa delivers 3.20 more per 100 to the recipient than BetterWorld.

Each platform is priced in its own currency: BetterWorld in GBP, BuonaCausa in EUR.

Our verdict

What the data says.

Paying by Credit card, BuonaCausa delivers about 3.20 more of every 100 donated than BetterWorld (€100.00 vs £96.80 per 100).

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

The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric BetterWorld BuonaCausa
Recipient gets (per 100) £96.80 €100.00★ winner
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 2.9% + £0.30 0% + €0.00★ winner
Trustpilot 2.9 (2)★ winner — (0)
Country coverage 0 countries 1 countries★ winner
Data residency EU★ winner
Languages 1 1
Payment methods supported 5★ winner 4
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
BuonaCausa

€100.00 vs £96.80 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
BetterWorld

2.9 vs — on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
BuonaCausa

1 vs 0 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
BuonaCausa

EEA data residency for GDPR-sensitive donor data.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose BetterWorld if

Nonprofits, schools, PTOs, and community groups in the US running auctions, raffles, events, and peer-to-peer campaigns that want every fundraising tool available on every plan.

  • Exceptionally broad format support: silent and live auctions, raffles, events, donation forms, peer-to-peer, crowdfunding, paddle raise, and a-thons.
  • No feature gating - every fundraising tool is available even on the free entry plan.
  • Paid Partner ($1,550/year) and Keystone ($5,950/year) tiers lower the platform's percentage cut for higher-volume organizations.
  • Most donors (over 95%) opt to cover payment processing, so organizations retain more of each gift.
Read full review →
Choose BuonaCausa if

Italian associations, nonprofits, and individuals who want a no-commission way to collect donations directly into their own accounts, and campaigners who pair fundraising with online petitions and activism.

  • Donations are paid directly into the organiser's own bank, PayPal, or postal account without platform intermediation
  • No platform commission charged on donations
  • Reduced third-party processing costs for recognised nonprofit (ONLUS) organisations
  • Combines donation fundraising with online petitions and activism on one platform
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, BetterWorld or BuonaCausa?

Of every 100 donated, BetterWorld delivers approximately £96.80 to the recipient and BuonaCausa delivers approximately €100.00. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

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

Which platform has more country coverage?

BetterWorld operates in 0 countries; BuonaCausa 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 →