Prospect research & wealth screening
DonorSearch alternatives
If you are shopping to replace DonorSearch, the shortlist below is ordered by the situation you are in rather than by which vendor pays most. Every price is real and dated, and where staying put is the right answer, we say so.
Checked Aug 3, 2026
Some links on this page are affiliate links. Disclosure
Why shops leave DonorSearch
- The subscription scales with your file, not your program. Reported at roughly $4,000/yr for a small file around 5,000 records, $6,000–$12,000/yr at 10,000–50,000, and $15,000–$22,000/yr at enterprise scale. A list that grows through acquisition re-prices a screening contract that isn't doing more work.
- Giving history is the lead, and that's a bet. DonorSearch weights demonstrated philanthropy. That's the right weighting for a file of consistent modest donors and the wrong one for a file of wealthy people who haven't given yet.
- Scores don't build a portfolio. The output is a ranked list. Somebody has to turn it into visits, and shops that subscribe without a named major-gifts owner renew a product nobody opened.
- You may only need one screen. Pre-campaign feasibility is a project, not an ongoing need. Paying annually for a one-time job is the most common way this category gets over-bought.
What to move to
| Tool | Pricing | Move here if | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kindsight (iWave) |
| You want capacity weighted heavily, and scores you can defend | Visit → |
| 2 | WealthEngine |
| You screen very large lists and want a third bid | Visit → |
1. Kindsight (iWave) — You want capacity weighted heavily, and scores you can defend
The direct head-to-head, and the one to price against DonorSearch. Reported from around $4,150/yr for one user and roughly 1,500 screens, with a Professional tier reported near $5,350/yr for three users and about 5,000 screens. The substantive difference is the weighting: Kindsight leads with wealth and capacity indicators where DonorSearch leads with giving history. The practical difference is that Kindsight is transparent about how a score is built — which matters more than it sounds, because a rating you can explain in a portfolio meeting gets acted on and an unexplained number gets ignored.
2. WealthEngine — You screen very large lists and want a third bid
Reported from around $5,000/yr for a single user, roughly $15,000/yr at about ten users and roughly $50,000/yr at around a hundred, plus a one-time implementation fee reported anywhere from $2,000 to $20,000. Strong wealth-indicator modeling and built for broad list segmentation rather than deep individual profiles. Include it in a competitive process specifically because these are negotiated deals — a vendor that knows it's the only bid quotes accordingly.
Wealth screening is the most over-bought category in fundraising software, and DonorSearch is one of the two products most often bought before a shop is ready for it. The tool is good. The question is whether anyone is working the output.
The test before you shop anything
Ask who, by name, will make the visits, and whether that’s on their calendar. If there’s no answer, no screening product on the market will pay for itself, and the cheaper move is to hand-research your top 25 prospects and see whether that produces meetings.
Our 2026 survey of 100 U.S. fundraising professionals found that 95% of shops under $250K raised report spending $0 on wealth screening, with a median of $0 and a mean of $45. At $250K–$1M the mean is $1,319 and the median $550 — half the segment still spends nothing. At $1M–$5M the mean is $4,135. The category effectively begins at $1M raised, and a $4,000 contract below that is the survey data arguing against you.
Buy the screen, not the year
The most underused option in this category is DonorSearch’s own pay-per-record pricing — reported at roughly $1–$2 per record. A 5,000-record file screened once, no subscription. For pre-campaign feasibility that is the entire job, and it’s worth confirming whether that route solves your problem before you shop a competitor’s annual contract.
The other version of the same idea is hiring a prospect research consultant to run the screen and interpret it, typically around $4,000–$5,000 as a project. That includes the part no software does: turning scores into a tiered portfolio with suggested ask amounts. For a shop screening for the first time, the interpretation is worth more than the data. Our consulting page covers how that kind of engagement works.
How to run the comparison properly
Don’t compare feature lists. Compare output on people you already know.
Build a test file of 50–100 constituents whose capacity you can independently verify — board members, past major donors, people whose giving to other organizations is public. Ask every vendor you’re considering to screen that file during the sales process. Most will.
Then check three things. Did they flag the people you know are capable? Did they miss anyone obvious? How many names scored high that you know can’t give at that level?
That test is also the only reliable way to see the real difference between these products. DonorSearch weights demonstrated giving; Kindsight weights wealth and capacity indicators; WealthEngine models wealth across large lists. Neither weighting is wrong — which one is right depends entirely on whether your donors are wealthy people who haven’t given yet, or modest people who give every year without fail.
On price
All three are quoted per organization, which means the number you’re given reflects how the negotiation went. Run at least two vendors through the same test file and tell each of them you’re doing it. That is the whole of your leverage in this category, and it is more effective than any renewal conversation you’ll have afterward.
Compare every option in prospect research & wealth screening, or see what a shop your size should be running in the recommended stacks.