Prospect research & wealth screening

The best wealth screening software in 2026

Wealth screening is the most over-bought category in fundraising software. Before comparing vendors, answer one question: who, by name, will make the visits? Without that, no product pays for itself. Our survey found 95% of shops under $250K raised spend nothing here — and they are right to.

Prices checked Aug 3, 2026

Some links on this page are affiliate links. Disclosure

What actually decides this

• The test is a calendar, not a feature list. Ask who by name will make the visits, and whether that is on their calendar. If there is no answer, no screening product on the market will pay for itself, and hand-researching your top 25 prospects is the cheaper experiment. The output of every tool here is a ranked list, and a ranked list nobody works is an expensive PDF.
• Capacity and inclination are different questions. Wealth-indicator models tell you who has money. They do not tell you who gives. A list ranked purely on capacity sends gift officers to wealthy people with no philanthropic history, and those visits convert badly. Which weighting is right depends on your file: wealthy people who have not given yet, or modest people who give every year without fail.
• Buy the screen, not the year. Pre-campaign feasibility is a one-time job. A pay-per-record screen at roughly $1-$2 per record does a 5,000-record file once for a few thousand dollars with no subscription. So does a consultant running the screen and interpreting it, typically $4,000-$5,000 as a project — and that includes turning scores into a tiered portfolio with suggested asks, which no software does.
• Every price here is negotiated, so get a second bid. Nothing in this category has a public rate card, which means your quote reflects how the negotiation went. Running the same test file past two vendors, and telling each that you are, is the whole of your leverage — and it works far better before you sign than at renewal.

This page ranks three products, and the honest headline is that most organizations reading it should not buy any of them yet.

The test before you shop anything

Who, by name, will make the visits? Is it on their calendar?

If there is no answer, stop. A screening tool produces a ranked list of capacity scores. That list does nothing on its own, and the annual contract starts whether or not anyone works it. The cheaper experiment is to hand-research your top 25 prospects and see whether that produces meetings — if it does not, the constraint is capacity, and buying data will not fix it.

What the sector actually does

From our 2026 survey of 100 U.S. fundraising professionals, annual prospect research spend:

Ninety-five percent of shops under $250K raised spend nothing. Half of the $250K–$1M segment still spends nothing. The category effectively begins at $1M raised, and if you are below that looking at a $4,000 contract, this table is the argument against it.

Buy the screen, not the year

The most underused option here is a one-time project.

DonorSearch’s pay-per-record pricing — reported at roughly $1–$2 per record — screens a 5,000-record file once, with no subscription attached. For pre-campaign feasibility that is the entire job.

The alternative version is hiring a prospect research consultant to run the screen and interpret it, typically $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 first screen, the interpretation is worth more than the data. Our consulting page covers how those engagements work.

How to compare them properly

Do not 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 to screen it 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 names scored high that you know cannot give at that level?

That test also exposes the real difference between these products, which no marketing page will state plainly. Kindsight weights wealth and capacity indicators and shows its sourcing. DonorSearch weights demonstrated philanthropic history. WealthEngine models wealth across very large lists. Neither weighting is wrong — the right one depends on whether your donors are wealthy people who have not given yet, or modest people who give every year without fail.

On price

Nothing in this category publishes a rate card, which means your quote reflects the negotiation rather than a market rate.

Run the same test file past at least two vendors and tell each one you are doing it. That is the entirety of your leverage, and it works far better before you sign than at renewal.

Already using one of these? See iWave alternatives, DonorSearch alternatives and WealthEngine alternatives.

See every option in prospect research & wealth screening, or start from the recommended stack for your size.