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 · 2026-06-01 Ownership disclosure
Head-to-head

iRaiser vs Steunactie

iRaiser logo
iRaiser
— · 19 countries

Established European nonprofits, foundations, hospitals, and cultural institutions that want branded, self-hosted fundraising tools — forms, peer-to-peer, crowdfunding, and events — under their own identity.

No rating yet
Read full review →
Steunactie logo
Steunactie
— · 2 countries

Dutch- and French-speaking community fundraisers in the Netherlands and Belgium - sports clubs, schools, churches and local nonprofits - that want a simple, VAT-transparent platform with weekly payouts and no minimum goal.

The headline

On a £100 donation, iRaiser delivers £4.45 more to the recipient than Steunactie.

Fees by method · the United Kingdom

Per-method pricing vs Steunactie.

Payment method Per transaction Of £100, recipient gets Notes
iDEAL £99.71 Flat iDEAL fee passed through at cost; platform priced by subscription.
SEPA Direct Debit 0.35% + £0.25 £99.40 SEPA Direct Debit at cost; platform priced by subscription.
Credit card 1.9% + £0.25 £97.85 Card processing at cost; no per-donation platform fee (subscription-priced).
The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric iRaiser Steunactie
Recipient gets (£100) £97.85★ winner £93.40
Platform fee 0%★ winner 6%
Payment processing fee 1.9% + £0.25★ winner 0% + £0.00
Trustpilot — (0) 4.5 (723)★ winner
Country coverage 19 countries★ winner 2 countries
Data residency
Languages 5★ winner 1
Payment methods supported 23★ winner 4
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
iRaiser

£97.85 vs £93.40 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Steunactie

— vs 4.5 on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
iRaiser

19 vs 2 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
Tied

Both share the same residency posture.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose iRaiser if

Established European nonprofits, foundations, hospitals, and cultural institutions that want branded, self-hosted fundraising tools — forms, peer-to-peer, crowdfunding, and events — under their own identity.

  • Branded, self-hosted fundraising tools (donation forms, peer-to-peer, crowdfunding, events, ticketing) under the nonprofit's own identity.
  • Configurable Flex Editor for tailoring donation journeys.
  • Established European focus, reporting more than 900 charities served across the region.
  • Suited to larger nonprofits, foundations, hospitals, and cultural institutions with dedicated fundraising teams.
Read full review →
Choose Steunactie if

Dutch- and French-speaking community fundraisers in the Netherlands and Belgium - sports clubs, schools, churches and local nonprofits - that want a simple, VAT-transparent platform with weekly payouts and no minimum goal.

  • Built for Benelux community causes - clubs, schools, churches and nonprofits - with simple setup.
  • Clear, VAT-inclusive pricing on a small set of common Benelux payment methods.
  • Keep-it-all funding with no minimum target, and weekly payouts that can be paused.
  • Payments handled by PSD2-licensed providers (Mollie, PayPal, Payaut).
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, iRaiser or Steunactie?

On a £100 donation, iRaiser delivers approximately £97.85 to the recipient and Steunactie delivers approximately £93.40. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

Both platforms operate inside the EEA framework. Choose based on local payment-method coverage and language support.

Which platform has more country coverage?

iRaiser operates in 19 countries; Steunactie operates in 2.

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 →