Give, a TIFIN Company

Name: Give, a TIFIN Company
Brand: Give, a TIFIN Company

AI Native

Philanthropy Platforms of the Future

Est 2021|Valuation $57M|Raised $14.5M

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 12|HQ Boulder, Colorado, US

MarketsRobo-Advisors & Embedded Investing Platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Top competitors comparison (3-way)

Given Give is a B2B DAF platform, procurement comparisons often include major DAF sponsors and consumer-oriented alternatives. | Aspect | TIFIN Give (Give) | Fidelity Charitable | Daffy | |---|---:|---:|---| | Starting Price | Not publicly listed (enterprise contract; implementation + subscription; plus basis-point components disclosed in regulatory filings) | Public fee guidance for giving accounts (published administrative fee schedules and minimums) | Membership-based pricing with published tiers | | Most Suitable For | Wealth firms seeking a white-label DAF platform integrated into advisor workflows and enterprise deployments | Individuals or advisors seeking a standardized DAF sponsor with broad asset acceptance and public fee guidance | Individuals seeking predictable membership pricing and a consumer-oriented user experience | | Key Strength | Platform focused on advisor integration, thematic model options, and enterprise partnerships (vendor claims) | Scale, brand recognition, broad asset acceptance, standardized operations | Transparent membership pricing and consumer-oriented UX | | Key Weakness | Limited public user-review evidence; pricing opacity; potential for layered fees that affect donor perception | Less customization or white-label options for enterprise branding | May not meet complex HNW/enterprise workflow requirements |

Narrative analysis

- Where Give may be advantageous: White-label enterprise positioning, investment model marketplace, and product features intended to support tax-aware workflows and advisor integration. - Where large sponsors may be advantageous (Fidelity/Schwab/Vanguard): Brand recognition, donor familiarity, established operations, public fee guidance, and broad asset acceptance rails. - Where consumer alternatives may be advantageous (Daffy): Transparent membership pricing and a consumer-focused user experience.

Competitive pressure points

If a firm already has strong custodial relationships, procuring a custodian-aligned DAF sponsor may be simpler than integrating a separate platform.
If philanthropy is a small portion of a firm’s service offering, the implementation effort for a dedicated platform may be difficult to justify.

01Competitive Landscape

Top competitors comparison (3-way)

Given Give is a B2B DAF platform, procurement comparisons often include major DAF sponsors and consumer-oriented alternatives.

Aspect	TIFIN Give (Give)	Fidelity Charitable	Daffy
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (enterprise contract; implementation + subscription; plus basis-point components disclosed in regulatory filings)	Public fee guidance for giving accounts (published administrative fee schedules and minimums)	Membership-based pricing with published tiers
Most Suitable For	Wealth firms seeking a white-label DAF platform integrated into advisor workflows and enterprise deployments	Individuals or advisors seeking a standardized DAF sponsor with broad asset acceptance and public fee guidance	Individuals seeking predictable membership pricing and a consumer-oriented user experience
Key Strength	Platform focused on advisor integration, thematic model options, and enterprise partnerships (vendor claims)	Scale, brand recognition, broad asset acceptance, standardized operations	Transparent membership pricing and consumer-oriented UX
Key Weakness	Limited public user-review evidence; pricing opacity; potential for layered fees that affect donor perception	Less customization or white-label options for enterprise branding	May not meet complex HNW/enterprise workflow requirements

Narrative analysis

Where Give may be advantageous: White-label enterprise positioning, investment model marketplace, and product features intended to support tax-aware workflows and advisor integration.
Where large sponsors may be advantageous (Fidelity/Schwab/Vanguard): Brand recognition, donor familiarity, established operations, public fee guidance, and broad asset acceptance rails.
Where consumer alternatives may be advantageous (Daffy): Transparent membership pricing and a consumer-focused user experience.

Competitive pressure points

If a firm already has strong custodial relationships, procuring a custodian-aligned DAF sponsor may be simpler than integrating a separate platform.
If philanthropy is a small portion of a firm’s service offering, the implementation effort for a dedicated platform may be difficult to justify.