How we choose what to fund
Our methodology is built on one principle: your dollar should do as much good as possible.
Evidence over emotion
Most charitable giving is driven by marketing and emotion, not evidence. A compelling story, a celebrity endorsement, or a well-timed fundraising campaign determines where billions of dollars flow each year — with little regard for whether those dollars are actually producing the outcomes donors care about.
We believe donors deserve the same rigorous analysis that sophisticated actors bring to high-stakes financial decisions. When a company deploys capital, they study evidence, model outcomes, and weigh alternatives. Charitable giving should be no different — especially because the stakes are often a matter of life and death.
GiveFolio does not conduct our own research. Instead, we source our recommendations from the world's leading charity research organizations — GiveWell, Founders Pledge, J-PAL, and Charity Navigator — and make their findings accessible to everyday donors. We link to the original source for every metric we display.
Where our research comes from
We rely on four organizations that set the standard for rigorous charity evaluation.
GiveWell
The gold standard in charity research. GiveWell conducts in-depth analysis of charities' programs, evidence of impact, and cost-effectiveness. Their top charity recommendations require charities to demonstrate rigorous evidence — typically randomized controlled trials — and room for more funding.
Focuses on: Global Health, PovertyFounders Pledge
Research organization that helps entrepreneurs and investors maximize the impact of their giving. Their cause reports provide comprehensive analysis of neglected areas including climate, mental health, and pandemic preparedness.
Focuses on: Climate, Mental Health, Pandemic PreparednessJ-PAL
A global research center at MIT that evaluates social programs using randomized controlled trials. Their Education and Social Protection research informs our education fund charity selections.
Focuses on: Education, PovertyCharity Navigator
America's largest charity evaluator. Rates nonprofits on financial health, accountability, and transparency. We use their ratings as a baseline filter — all featured charities score above 85/100.
Focuses on: Accountability, TransparencyHow a charity makes it onto GiveFolio
We apply five criteria before featuring any charity.
Evidence of impact
The charity must have strong evidence that its programs work — ideally from randomized controlled trials or rigorous independent evaluations. We distinguish between Strong and Very Strong evidence based on the quality, size, and independence of studies.
Cost-effectiveness
We prioritize charities where each dollar goes furthest. We use cost-per-outcome metrics sourced directly from GiveWell, Founders Pledge, and J-PAL research — not our own estimates.
Financial accountability
All featured charities score 85 or above on Charity Navigator, indicating strong financial health and transparency in reporting.
Room for more funding
A charity can be highly effective but unable to deploy additional funding well. We consider whether additional donations will actually increase impact.
Organizational track record
We favor charities with multi-year track records of execution, not just promising programs. Experience matters.
What our evidence ratings mean
Based on multiple large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by independent researchers. Results have been replicated across different populations and geographies. This is the highest standard in development economics research.
Example: Against Malaria Foundation — multiple RCTs across Africa and Asia confirming net distribution reduces malaria mortality.
Based on at least one large RCT or multiple high-quality quasi-experimental studies. Results are consistent and credible but may not yet be replicated as extensively as Very Strong evidence.
Example: Room to Read — independent evaluation of girls education program showing significant improvement in secondary school completion rates.
Based on observational studies, smaller trials, or strong theoretical grounding with some empirical support. These charities show promise but evidence is less definitive. We include them where the potential impact is high and the organization is highly accountable.
Example: Khan Academy — multiple studies showing learning gains among regular users, though RCT evidence is limited.
Our limitations
GiveFolio is not a charity evaluator — we curate based on existing research from organizations that are. We do not conduct our own studies or field research. Our ratings and cost estimates are sourced directly from GiveWell, Founders Pledge, J-PAL, and Charity Navigator — we link to the original source for every metric we display.
Cost-effectiveness estimates involve significant uncertainty. A “$3,000 per life saved” figure is a model-based estimate with wide confidence intervals — not a precise guarantee. We display these figures because they are the best available evidence for comparison, not because they are exact.
We review and update our charity selections periodically. Charities can be added or removed based on new research. Our goal is always to reflect the current best evidence.