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

GINGER vs Give Lively

GINGER logo
GINGER
EU · 1 countries

Italian creators, associations, and local businesses running reward-based or donation campaigns who value a platform with a strong project-success rate and roots in the Emilia-Romagna region.

No rating yet
Read full review →
Give Lively logo
Give Lively
US · 1 countries

US 501(c)(3) nonprofits seeking a fully underwritten, no-cost fundraising toolkit - campaign pages, text-to-donate, peer-to-peer, and events - backed by philanthropist founders rather than platform charges.

The headline

Of every 100 donated, GINGER delivers 0.35 more per 100 to the recipient than Give Lively.

Each platform is priced in its own currency: GINGER in EUR, Give Lively in USD.

Our verdict

What the data says.

GINGER stores donor data inside the EEA — a practical advantage for GDPR-sensitive campaigns — while Give Lively does not.

On the headline numbers, GINGER and Give Lively 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 GINGER Give Lively
Recipient gets (per 100) €97.85★ winner $97.50
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 1.8% + €0.35★ winner 2.2% + $0.30
Trustpilot — (0) 3.3 (1)★ winner
Country coverage 1 countries 1 countries
Data residency EU★ winner US
Languages 1★ winner 0
Payment methods supported 4 6★ winner
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
GINGER

€97.85 vs $97.50 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Give Lively

— vs 3.3 on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
Tied

1 vs 1 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
GINGER

EEA data residency for GDPR-sensitive donor data.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose GINGER if

Italian creators, associations, and local businesses running reward-based or donation campaigns who value a platform with a strong project-success rate and roots in the Emilia-Romagna region.

  • One of the highest project-success rates among Italian crowdfunding platforms
  • Mixed model supporting both reward-based campaigns and donation fundraising
  • Open to individuals, associations, businesses, and public administrations
  • Does not retain a platform percentage of funds raised (payment-processing commissions apply)
Read full review →
Choose Give Lively if

US 501(c)(3) nonprofits seeking a fully underwritten, no-cost fundraising toolkit - campaign pages, text-to-donate, peer-to-peer, and events - backed by philanthropist founders rather than platform charges.

  • Underwritten by philanthropist founders, so member nonprofits are not charged for the software.
  • Full toolkit: campaign pages, donation widgets, text-to-donate, peer-to-peer, team fundraising, and events.
  • Donors can opt to cover processing, helping organizations keep the full gift.
  • Rapid disbursement with no holding period.
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, GINGER or Give Lively?

Of every 100 donated, GINGER delivers approximately €97.85 to the recipient and Give Lively delivers approximately $97.50. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

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

Which platform has more country coverage?

GINGER operates in 1 countries; Give Lively 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 →