Overflow

Name: Overflow
Brand: Overflow
Rating: 3.8 (11 reviews)

Overflow is the leading giving platform for the digital age—the most uncomplicated way to receive and manage giving.

Est 2019|Valuation $80M|Raised $33.5M|27 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 3K|Web traffic 117K|FTEs 112|HQ Los Gatos, California, US

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Areas of relative strength for the vendor: - Breadth of non-cash giving support (stock, crypto, DAFs, planned giving messaging) compared with competitors that primarily focus on card/ACH. - A migration-led sales and onboarding motion that can reduce internal lift for organizations moving from legacy providers. - A hardware-enabled engagement option (Tap) that can support in-service flows and other tap-to-action use cases. Areas where competitors often appear stronger: - Cost/fee transparency and unit economics: Some competitors publish detailed pricing and processing economics that can be easier to model for volume-heavy organizations. - Support channel clarity: Some competitors publicly document phone and email support hours and escalation paths; public vendor documentation for Overflow is less explicit. - Contract flexibility: Materials for some competitors emphasize month-to-month or cancel-anytime options; vendor materials for Overflow emphasize annual subscriptions. - NFC hardware pricing: Some NFC alternatives publish lower tag pricing and no-contract positioning in third-party comparisons. Market adoption signals: - Planning Center reports a substantially larger footprint across churches in absolute terms, while the vendor has cited a few hundred organizations on its platform; these figures indicate differing scale and should be considered when benchmarking adoption.

	Overflow (overflow.co)	Planning Center Giving	Tithe.ly
Starting Price	Publicly marketed starting price at a low-entry annual subscription + processing (scales with org size)	Tiered/usage-based (including a free tier for very small volumes) + Stripe processing	Free basic giving tools (processing applies) or an all-access paid plan + processing
Processing (US)	Card and ACH processing with per-transaction percentage + fixed-fee structure; non-cash flows have separate processing economics	Stripe-based processing for core payment rails; published Stripe rates apply to Planning Center flows	Card and ACH processing with standard per-transaction economics; AMEX and alternative rails may carry higher fees
Best For	Churches/nonprofits seeking multiple giving rails including stock/DAF/crypto and migration support	Churches seeking low processing costs and tight Planning Center integration	Churches seeking a bundled toolset (giving + ChMS + app/website) with accessible pricing messaging
Key Strengths	Breadth of non-cash giving support; migration services; Tap hardware ecosystem; integrations	Cost positioning for core payment rails; deep Planning Center ecosystem integration	Broad feature set across church operations; accessible pricing story; larger review footprint
Key Weaknesses	Public documentation on enterprise security controls is limited; review signals are mixed; annual contract framing and Tap costs may increase TCO	Non-cash giving not a primary focus; relies on Stripe rails for core flows	Non-cash giving (stock/DAF/crypto) not a core differentiator; processing rates may be higher than some competitors

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Areas of relative strength for the vendor:

Breadth of non-cash giving support (stock, crypto, DAFs, planned giving messaging) compared with competitors that primarily focus on card/ACH.
A migration-led sales and onboarding motion that can reduce internal lift for organizations moving from legacy providers.
A hardware-enabled engagement option (Tap) that can support in-service flows and other tap-to-action use cases.

Areas where competitors often appear stronger:

Cost/fee transparency and unit economics: Some competitors publish detailed pricing and processing economics that can be easier to model for volume-heavy organizations.
Support channel clarity: Some competitors publicly document phone and email support hours and escalation paths; public vendor documentation for Overflow is less explicit.
Contract flexibility: Materials for some competitors emphasize month-to-month or cancel-anytime options; vendor materials for Overflow emphasize annual subscriptions.
NFC hardware pricing: Some NFC alternatives publish lower tag pricing and no-contract positioning in third-party comparisons.

Market adoption signals:

Planning Center reports a substantially larger footprint across churches in absolute terms, while the vendor has cited a few hundred organizations on its platform; these figures indicate differing scale and should be considered when benchmarking adoption.

	Overflow (overflow.co)	Planning Center Giving	Tithe.ly
Starting Price	Publicly marketed starting price at a low-entry annual subscription + processing (scales with org size)	Tiered/usage-based (including a free tier for very small volumes) + Stripe processing	Free basic giving tools (processing applies) or an all-access paid plan + processing
Processing (US)	Card and ACH processing with per-transaction percentage + fixed-fee structure; non-cash flows have separate processing economics	Stripe-based processing for core payment rails; published Stripe rates apply to Planning Center flows	Card and ACH processing with standard per-transaction economics; AMEX and alternative rails may carry higher fees
Best For	Churches/nonprofits seeking multiple giving rails including stock/DAF/crypto and migration support	Churches seeking low processing costs and tight Planning Center integration	Churches seeking a bundled toolset (giving + ChMS + app/website) with accessible pricing messaging
Key Strengths	Breadth of non-cash giving support; migration services; Tap hardware ecosystem; integrations	Cost positioning for core payment rails; deep Planning Center ecosystem integration	Broad feature set across church operations; accessible pricing story; larger review footprint
Key Weaknesses	Public documentation on enterprise security controls is limited; review signals are mixed; annual contract framing and Tap costs may increase TCO	Non-cash giving not a primary focus; relies on Stripe rails for core flows	Non-cash giving (stock/DAF/crypto) not a core differentiator; processing rates may be higher than some competitors

Overflow

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

02Market Map

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

02Market Map