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 leDonenligne.fr

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 →
leDonenligne.fr logo
leDonenligne.fr
France (OVH) · 1 countries

Small and mid-sized French associations with public-interest or mecenat status that need a compliant, low-overhead way to collect donations and memberships and issue automatic fiscal receipts.

No rating yet
Read full review →
The headline

On a €100 donation, leDonenligne.fr delivers €2.15 more to the recipient than GINGER.

GINGER & leDonenligne.fr don’t process payments in GBP — pricing shown in EUR.

Our verdict

What the data says.

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

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

The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric GINGER leDonenligne.fr
Recipient gets (€100) €97.85 €100.00★ winner
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 1.8% + €0.35 0% + €0.00★ winner
Trustpilot — (0) — (0)
Country coverage 1 countries 1 countries
Data residency EU★ winner France (OVH)
Languages 1 1
Payment methods supported 4★ winner 1
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
leDonenligne.fr

€100.00 vs €97.85 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Tied

— vs — 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 leDonenligne.fr if

Small and mid-sized French associations with public-interest or mecenat status that need a compliant, low-overhead way to collect donations and memberships and issue automatic fiscal receipts.

  • Built specifically for French public-interest associations, with eligibility limited to organisations recognised for mecenat - a trust signal for donors.
  • Automatic issuance of fiscal receipts (recus fiscaux), emailed to donors without manual work.
  • Payments secured by the Credit Mutuel Arkea banking group using 3D-Secure.
  • Supports donation forms, membership (adhesion) collection, and custom or peer-to-peer fundraising campaigns.
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 leDonenligne.fr?

On a €100 donation, GINGER delivers approximately €97.85 to the recipient and leDonenligne.fr delivers approximately €100.00. 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; leDonenligne.fr 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 →