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 mycause

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 →
mycause logo
mycause
Australia (US backup) · 1 countries

Australian individuals, registered charities, and schools running domestic donation campaigns who value a long-established, locally owned platform with Australian data residency and a donor-tip funding model for personal causes.

No rating yet
Read full review →
The headline

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

Each platform is priced in its own currency: GINGER in EUR, mycause in AUD.

Our verdict

What the data says.

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

On the headline numbers, GINGER and mycause 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 mycause
Recipient gets (per 100) €97.85★ winner A$97.50
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 1.8% + €0.35★ winner 2.5% + A$0.00
Trustpilot — (0) — (0)
Country coverage 1 countries 1 countries
Data residency EU★ winner Australia (US backup)
Languages 1 1
Payment methods supported 4★ winner 0
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
GINGER

€97.85 vs A$97.50 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 mycause if

Australian individuals, registered charities, and schools running domestic donation campaigns who value a long-established, locally owned platform with Australian data residency and a donor-tip funding model for personal causes.

  • Long-established Australian pioneer of crowdfunding, operating since 2009.
  • Wholly Australian owned and operated, with primary servers based in Sydney.
  • Personal fundraisers carry no platform charge, funded by an optional donor tip.
  • Donations receipted to the chosen Australian charity.
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 mycause?

Of every 100 donated, GINGER delivers approximately €97.85 to the recipient and mycause delivers approximately A$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; mycause 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 →