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 Zeffy

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 →
Zeffy logo
Zeffy
CA · 4 countries

Nonprofits and charitable organisations in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia that want donation forms, event ticketing, auctions, and donor management together in one tool without per-tool software costs.

The headline

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

Fees by method · the United Kingdom

Per-method pricing vs Zeffy.

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 Zeffy
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) 4.5 (441)★ winner
Country coverage 19 countries★ winner 4 countries
Data residency CA
Languages 5★ winner 2
Payment methods supported 23★ winner 4
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
Zeffy

£100.00 vs £97.85 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Zeffy

— vs 4.5 on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
iRaiser

19 vs 4 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 Zeffy if

Nonprofits and charitable organisations in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia that want donation forms, event ticketing, auctions, and donor management together in one tool without per-tool software costs.

  • Combines donation forms, event ticketing, raffles, auctions, peer-to-peer campaigns, memberships, and donor management in one platform.
  • Accepts credit cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and ACH bank transfers.
  • Used by more than 100,000 nonprofit organisations across North America.
  • Available in English and French, suiting both US and Canadian (including Québec) organisations.
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 Zeffy?

On a £100 donation, iRaiser delivers approximately £97.85 to the recipient and Zeffy 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; Zeffy operates in 4.

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 →