Your peers are visible. So are you.
Your nonprofit is not being viewed alone.
A donor considering a major gift can open your Form 990, open the filings of three similar organizations and compare them before anyone on your staff knows the research has begun.
The same is true for foundations, journalists, board candidates, executive recruits and fundraising consultants. They do not need permission, an introduction or access to an internal report. The filings are public, and the comparison takes minutes.
Your peers’ Form 990s are one click away from yours. The question is what people see when they place them side by side.
Nonprofit leaders usually define peers carefully. They consider mission, geography, operating budget, institutional age, program model and population served.
Outsiders are less disciplined.
A donor may compare every organization addressing the same cause. A job candidate may compare every nonprofit offering a similar position. A journalist may select the three largest organizations in a city. A foundation officer may compare applicants with similar revenue, even when their programs operate differently.
Some comparisons will be imperfect. They will still happen.
Your organization does not control every comparison group. It must understand the groups into which readers are likely to place it.
Most readers begin with figures that are easy to recognize:
These numbers do not measure nonprofit quality. They do establish relative size, financial direction and operating structure.
If three organizations report similar revenue but one holds five times the assets, the difference attracts attention. If two chief executives lead organizations of comparable size but one earns twice as much, the difference in executive compensation demands an explanation. If one organization spends substantially more on fundraising, readers will look for corresponding growth in contributions.
The comparison does not deliver a verdict. It identifies the questions.
Consider three hypothetical organizations working in the same region and addressing the same cause:
| Measure | Organization A | Organization B | Organization C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual revenue | $8.2 million | $8.6 million | $7.9 million |
| Contributions | $5.1 million | $3.8 million | $5.4 million |
| Net assets | $6.3 million | $19.7 million | $4.9 million |
| Program expenses | $5.8 million | $6.7 million | $5.6 million |
| Chief executive compensation | $238,000 | $412,000 | $226,000 |
| Fundraising expenses | $620,000 | $940,000 | $710,000 |
The table does not prove that one organization is better managed than another. It does make Organization B impossible to ignore.
Its assets and executive compensation are substantially higher, while its contribution revenue is lower. But it also reports the highest program spending of the three. That does not settle the comparison. It complicates it, which is exactly what a useful comparison should do.
Does Organization B hold an endowment or restricted funds? Does it earn more program-service revenue? Does its chief executive manage more employees, facilities or regulatory obligations? Does its higher fundraising investment produce stronger long-term results?
Every difference has a possible explanation. Until the reader finds one, the difference becomes the story.
Comparison encourages readers to focus on dramatic gaps. The larger salary, the lower program percentage or the bigger reserve gets immediate attention.
But the most important difference often appears across time.
One organization reports steady contribution growth over four years. Another moves sharply between surpluses and deficits. A third has increased fundraising expenses every year while contributions remain flat.
A single year produces a contrast. Several years reveal direction.
This is why a serious peer review should compare both organizations and trends. A smaller nonprofit with steady growth can look stronger than a larger institution losing revenue, donors and assets. An organization with higher fundraising expenses can look disciplined when those investments consistently produce growth.
The public filing rarely explains the operating decisions behind those trends. It shows the result.
Reducing several nonprofits to a single score would create false precision. Organizations with similar missions operate under different conditions, revenue models and financial constraints.
A university, hospital, museum, food bank and community foundation cannot be judged by one universal formula. Even two organizations in the same field can own different facilities, serve different populations or carry different legal and financial obligations.
That is why Philanthropy.org does not declare winners and losers.
Comparison is still valuable. It establishes scale, exposes unusual differences and helps leaders ask better questions. Used properly, it is a diagnostic tool rather than a scoreboard.
A strong comparison group usually includes organizations sharing several characteristics:
Do not choose peers merely because their numbers make your organization look good. That exercise teaches nothing.
Include one organization that is larger, one that is growing faster and one that competes directly for the same support. The resulting questions will be more useful than a comparison designed to reassure the board.
Use 990 Scout to find your organization and place it beside several reasonable peers. Then examine the comparison as an outsider:
The goal is not to make every number match. It is to know where your organization stands and what its differences communicate.
Your organization can ignore public comparisons, but it cannot prevent them. See them first, understand the questions they create and provide context where context is missing.
If that information is incomplete, claim your nonprofit profile and contribute the context that a financial comparison cannot provide.
Next: When a Perfectly Legal Form 990 Makes a Nonprofit Look Bad.
GIVING Magazine
For those who drive change — not watch it. Join the top 1%.