Prospect research & wealth screening
iWave (Kindsight) alternatives
If you are shopping to replace iWave (Kindsight), 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 iWave (Kindsight)
- It's an annual contract at four figures. Reported entry is around $4,150/yr for one user and roughly 1,500 screens; the Professional tier is reported near $5,350/yr for three users and about 5,000 screens. That's a commitment before you know whether the output changes anyone's behaviour.
- Screening volume is capped. Tiers are bounded by seats and screens. A single full-file screen can consume most of a year's allocation, which is awkward for a shop that screens once and then wants to re-screen after an acquisition push.
- Scores don't create a portfolio. The output is a ranked list. Someone has to turn it into visits. 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 is over-bought.
What to move to
| Tool | Pricing | Move here if | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DonorSearch |
| You weight proven giving over wealth markers | Visit → |
| 2 | WealthEngine |
| You want a third bid before signing anything | Visit → |
1. DonorSearch — You weight proven giving over wealth markers
The most credible head-to-head alternative, and the one to price against iWave directly. Reported at roughly $4,000/yr for a small file around 5,000 records, $6,000–$12,000/yr at 10,000–50,000 records, and $15,000–$22,000/yr at enterprise scale — with a pay-per-record option at roughly $1–$2 per record for a one-off screen with no subscription. That per-record route is the important one: it lets you buy a single screening project instead of a year. DonorSearch leads with demonstrated philanthropy rather than wealth indicators, and integrates scores directly into major donor CRMs.
2. WealthEngine — You want a third bid before signing anything
Reported from around $5,000/yr for a single user, quoted per organization. Worth including in a competitive process specifically because these are negotiated deals — a vendor that knows it's the only bid quotes accordingly. Run the same test file through every option you're considering and compare who each one flags.
Wealth screening is the most over-bought category in fundraising software. The tools are good; the problem is that a ranked list of capacity scores does nothing on its own, and the annual contract starts whether or not anyone works it.
The test before you shop
Ask who, by name, will make the visits. If the answer isn’t a specific person with time on their calendar, 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. Mean spend in that segment is $45 a year. At $250K–$1M it’s $1,319, at $1M–$5M it’s $4,135, and at $5M+ it’s $17,320. The category effectively starts at $1M raised. If you’re below that and looking at a $4,000 contract, the survey data is the argument against it.
Buy the screen, not the year
The most underused option here is a one-time screening project. DonorSearch’s pay-per-record pricing — reported at roughly $1–$2 per record — means a 5,000-record file can be screened once for a few thousand dollars with no subscription attached. For pre-campaign feasibility, that’s the entire job.
The alternative version of the same idea is hiring a prospect research consultant to run the screen and interpret it. That typically lands around $4,000–$5,000 as a project and includes the part the software doesn’t do: turning scores into a tiered portfolio with suggested asks. For a shop screening for the first time, that interpretation is worth more than the data. If that’s the situation you’re in, our consulting page covers how that kind of engagement works.
How to run the comparison
Don’t compare feature lists. Compare output on people you already know.
Assemble 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? And how many false positives did you get — names scored high that you know can’t give at that level? The vendor whose output most closely matches your independent knowledge is the one whose output your team will trust on the names you don’t know.
That test also reveals the real difference between the products in this category. Kindsight weights wealth indicators heavily and shows its sourcing; DonorSearch weights demonstrated philanthropic history. Neither is wrong. Which one is right depends on whether your donors are wealthy people who haven’t given yet, or modest people who give consistently.
Compare every option in prospect research & wealth screening, or see what a shop your size should be running in the recommended stacks.