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

Chuffed vs iRaiser

Chuffed logo
Chuffed
AU · 29 countries

Nonprofits, social enterprises, and community-cause organisers in 29 supported countries who want a 100%-free, tip-funded platform and are willing to complete identity verification before launching.

iRaiser logo
iRaiser
EEA · 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 →
The headline

On a kr100 donation, iRaiser delivers kr5.65 more to the recipient than Chuffed.

Our verdict

What the data says.

Paying by Credit card, iRaiser delivers about kr5.65 more of every kr100 donated than Chuffed (kr97.85 vs kr92.20).

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

Fees by method · Sweden

Per-method pricing vs iRaiser.

Payment method Per transaction Of kr100, recipient gets Notes iRaiser · fee iRaiser gets Delta
Credit card 7.8% + kr0.00 kr92.20 4.9% platform fee 1.9% + kr0.25 kr97.85 kr-5.65
The evidence

Side-by-side.

Metric Chuffed iRaiser
Recipient gets (kr100) kr92.20 kr97.85★ winner
Platform fee 4.9% 0%★ winner
Payment processing fee 2.9% + kr0.00 1.9% + kr0.25★ winner
Trustpilot 4.8 (691)★ winner — (0)
Country coverage 29 countries★ winner 19 countries
Data residency AU EEA★ winner
Languages 4 5★ winner
Payment methods supported 5 23★ winner
Verdict

Winner by category.

Better fees
iRaiser

kr97.85 vs kr92.20 reaches the recipient.

Higher Trustpilot rating
Chuffed

4.8 vs — on Trustpilot.

Wider country coverage
Chuffed

29 vs 19 countries.

Better for European fundraisers
iRaiser

EEA data residency for GDPR-sensitive donor data.

Pick by fit

Choose based on who you are.

Choose Chuffed if

Nonprofits, social enterprises, and community-cause organisers in 29 supported countries who want a 100%-free, tip-funded platform and are willing to complete identity verification before launching.

  • Free to launch — no signup or monthly fees.
  • Optional donor-tip model can make campaigns effectively free to run.
  • Three flexible fee structures (keep-100%, shared, and flat-fee) to suit different campaigns.
  • Mission-aligned: operates as a Social Benefit Company weighing social and community impact.
Read full review →
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 →
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, Chuffed or iRaiser?

On a kr100 donation, Chuffed delivers approximately kr92.20 to the recipient and iRaiser delivers approximately kr97.85. Real costs depend on the payment method donors choose.

Which is better for European nonprofits?

iRaiser is generally better suited to European nonprofits handling GDPR-sensitive donor data because of its EEA data residency.

Which platform has more country coverage?

Chuffed operates in 29 countries; iRaiser operates in 19.

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 →