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 Teaming

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 →
Teaming logo
Teaming
— · 0 countries

European supporters and small NGOs that prefer steady, low-commitment recurring giving - one euro a month per cause through a Teaming Group - over one-off donation campaigns.

The headline

On a £100 donation, Teaming delivers £2.15 more to the recipient than iRaiser.

Fees by method · the United Kingdom

Per-method pricing vs Teaming.

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 Teaming
Recipient gets (£100) £97.85 £100.00★ winner
Platform fee 0% 0%
Payment processing fee 1.9% + £0.25 0% + £0.00★ winner
Trustpilot — (0) 3 (9)★ winner
Country coverage 19 countries★ winner 0 countries
Data residency
Languages 5★ winner 0
Payment methods supported 23★ winner 0
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
Teaming

£100.00 vs £97.85 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Teaming

— vs 3 on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
iRaiser

19 vs 0 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 Teaming if

European supporters and small NGOs that prefer steady, low-commitment recurring giving - one euro a month per cause through a Teaming Group - over one-off donation campaigns.

  • Simple, recurring one-euro-a-month microdonation model that gives causes predictable monthly income.
  • Run by the nonprofit Teaming Foundation, which funds platform operations through trustees, partner companies and pro-bono support.
  • Collective "Teaming Groups" let companies and communities pool many small contributions behind one cause.
  • Recurring-by-design, supporting long-term sustainability for grassroots organizations.
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 Teaming?

On a £100 donation, iRaiser delivers approximately £97.85 to the recipient and Teaming delivers approximately £100.00. 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; Teaming operates in 0.

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 →