Do donors cover processing fees? What the opt-in studies actually show
Named, dated statistics on whether donors cover processing fees: NextAfter's 60% opt-in but 38.5% conversion drop, Funraise's ~90% opt-in and $3.5M covered, and the revenue trade-off researchers and vendors report.
Last updated July 2026 by Fatih
Quick answer
Many do, but asking has a cost. In NextAfter's 2022 controlled test, about 60% of donors who saw the option covered the fees, yet the ask cut conversion by 38.5% (from 12.0% to 7.4%) and total revenue by 20.5%. Funraise reports about 90% of donors covering fees on its forms. Results depend on wording, placement, and whether the box is pre-checked, so test it on your own form.
Key takeaways
- A second NextAfter test, with KCBI, still saw an 11.6% drop in conversion using clearer wording.
- Published opt-in rates range from about 50% to 90%, largely because of form design.
- No public study yet isolates fee-cover prompts at kiosks or on recurring gifts.
Who this is for: Nonprofit and church fundraising teams deciding whether to add a donor-covered fee option; Journalists and researchers reporting on online giving and fee transparency; Donation platform and product teams benchmarking opt-in and conversion trade-offs; Faith leaders and board members weighing revenue against donor experience
Do donors cover processing fees? Often yes: when a donation form offers the option, roughly 60% of donors opt in, per a controlled NextAfter experiment (Jan to Feb 2022), and one platform reports rates near 90%. The catch is conversion: that same NextAfter test found asking donors to cover fees cut completion rates by 38.5% and lowered total revenue by 20.5% at 95% confidence.
This roundup gathers named, dated figures on donor-covered (sometimes called 'donor tip' or 'fee relief') processing fees: the opt-in rates vendors and researchers report, and the revenue and conversion trade-off behind the genuine debate over whether to ask at all.
Every statistic below is attributed to a public source and listed in the final Sources section. No proprietary figures are claimed.
Yes, many donors opt in when asked
In NextAfter's controlled experiment (January 21 to February 6, 2022), about 60% of donors who were shown the option chose to cover the processing fees, lifting the average gift roughly 3%. The donation platform Funraise reports an even higher rate, with about 90% of donors covering fees on its forms, contributing to $3.5M in processing fees and over $8M total covered across its customers (case study, February 2024).
These high opt-in numbers are why fee coverage is widely offered. Funraise attributes part of the upside to a low 1.5% average effective total payment cost (2022), meaning a modest add-on can offset most or all of an organization's processing costs when donors agree to it.

But asking can cost you conversions
The same NextAfter experiment that found 60% opt-in also found a 38.5% drop in conversion rate, from 12.0% to 7.4%, and 20.5% less total revenue at a 95% confidence level across 4,194 visitors. NextAfter's interpretation: introducing transactional language like 'fees' pushed some potential donors to abandon the gift entirely, outweighing the slightly higher average from those who stayed.
A separate NextAfter test with Christian radio station KCBI (April 12 to June 10, 2022) tried clearer messaging about the impact of covering credit card fees and still saw an 11.6% conversion decline, from 17.4% to 15.4%, at 97.1% confidence. Together these results frame the genuine debate: a high opt-in rate does not guarantee more net revenue.
Why vendor opt-in rates differ so much
Published opt-in rates range widely, from roughly 50% to about 90% depending on the platform and, critically, on whether covering fees is opt-in, opt-out, or pre-checked by default. Funraise's near-90% figure reflects its specific form design, while NextAfter's controlled 60% reflects an experimental opt-in presentation, so the numbers are not directly comparable.
The practical takeaway from these named studies is that defaults, placement, and wording move the outcome more than the headline percentage. An organization that wants both coverage and conversion should test its own form rather than assume any single vendor's rate applies.
What this means for kiosk and recurring giving
Most published fee-coverage research comes from online forms, where 'fee' language competes with donor hesitation at checkout. In-person kiosks and recurring gifts are different moments: a kiosk donor has already walked up to give, and a recurring donor has already committed, so a fee-coverage prompt may carry less conversion risk than the NextAfter form data suggests, though no public study isolates that yet.
Givebear offers a donor-covered fee option on its kiosks, giving forms, and recurring gifts, which organizations can turn on where it fits and off where it does not. Treat the figures above as form-based benchmarks and test in your own context before assuming they transfer.
Sources
NextAfter, 'How introducing donor fees impacts conversion' (experiment with American Cornerstone Institute, conducted January to February 2022): ~60% opt-in, +3% average gift, 38.5% conversion drop (12.0% to 7.4%), 20.5% revenue decrease at 95% confidence. NextAfter, 'How communicating the impact of paying for credit card fees influenced donor conversion' (experiment with KCBI, April to June 2022): 11.6% conversion drop (17.4% to 15.4%) at 97.1% confidence.
Funraise, 'Donors Cover Fees' case study (February 2024): ~90% of donors cover fees, $3.5M in processing fees covered, $8M+ total covered, 1.5% average effective total payment cost (2022). Vendor opt-in range (roughly 50% to 90%) as compiled from published platform figures cited in nonprofit fundraising coverage (Givelify and Funraise, 2022 to 2024).
Practical use cases
- Cite the NextAfter 38.5% conversion-drop figure when arguing against making fee coverage prominent or mandatory
- Cite Funraise's ~90% opt-in and $3.5M covered when arguing the option can work with the right default
- Use the paired figures to present the genuine debate (high opt-in vs conversion cost) in a balanced way
- Benchmark your own A/B test against these named, dated control results
Key features
- ~60% of donors opted to cover fees when offered, raising the average gift about 3%, in NextAfter's controlled experiment (Jan to Feb 2022, 4,194 visitors).
- That same NextAfter test recorded a 38.5% drop in conversion (12.0% to 7.4%) and 20.5% less total revenue, at 95% confidence.
- A second NextAfter experiment with Christian radio station KCBI (Apr to Jun 2022) saw fee-impact messaging cut conversion 11.6% (17.4% to 15.4%) at 97.1% confidence.
- Funraise reports ~90% of donors cover fees on its forms, with $3.5M in processing fees and over $8M total covered across customers (case study, Feb 2024).
- Funraise cites a 1.5% average effective total payment cost (2022) behind those covered amounts.
- Published vendor opt-in rates vary widely, roughly 50% to 90% depending on platform and default settings, underscoring why design and defaults matter more than the headline rate.
Common questions
Do donors actually cover processing fees when asked?
Does asking donors to cover fees raise more money overall?
Why do different platforms report such different opt-in rates?
Is the conversion penalty the same for in-person kiosk or recurring gifts?
More in Research
Keep reading
See it with your own funds.
Book a 30-minute walkthrough. No slides and no hard sell: we set Givebear up around how your organization already gives.
- Your funds, set up the way your treasurer reports them
- Where a kiosk would go, and what it costs
- The reports your board will actually see
Rather set it up yourself? Start free
Loading available times
Or open the booking page