An Emma Live alternative for UK charities

I build fundraising software myself, and I also stand on the stage on the night, so I look at these platforms through both lenses. Here is the comparison, starting with the part most people want first.

An Emma Live alternative, compared at a glance

The table shows the two real differences. One is the fee model: no percentage against a percentage. The other is bigger: Emma Live is a platform you run yourself, while a Generosity Works engagement includes the person who designs and delivers the evening. The rest of this page unpacks both.

What does Emma Live do?

Emma Live is an all-in-one event fundraising platform, marketed around its AI features, used by charities to run silent and live auctions, ticketing, donations and pledges. Guests bid and give from their phones, and payments run through the charity’s own Stripe account rather than being held by the platform.

It is a well-regarded product with a broad feature set, and if what you need is capable software to run yourself, it is a reasonable choice. Nothing here is a criticism of how it works.

What is worth examining, before you commit, is what it costs your cause under the plan you would actually use, and what it does not include.

What does Emma Live actually cost?

Emma Live publishes three tiers. The figures below are from its own pricing page.

• Emma Essential. Free to start, funded by a 4% platform fee on what you raise.
• Emma Enhanced. From £1,295 for a single event, with unlimited users and dedicated support.
• Emma Annual. Bespoke pricing for charities running multiple events a year.

On top of any tier sit Stripe’s standard payment-processing fees. To Emma Live’s credit, it uses your own Stripe and does not hold your funds, which is exactly how it should be done.

The number that repays a closer look is the one attached to the word “free”.

What does the “free” 4% really cost?

More than it looks. A 4% platform fee sounds small next to a raffle or a bought-in prize, but it is charged on everything you raise, and it grows as your night succeeds.

Put a figure on it. On an event that raises £100,000, a 4% fee is £4,000 to the platform. On a £250,000 gala it is £10,000. That is money your donors gave to the cause, going instead to the software that processed it. The better your evening does, the more the percentage takes, which is the opposite of what you want from a supplier.

A platform that takes no percentage behaves the other way. It does not move with the total, so every extra pound your room gives is a pound the charity keeps. Over a single large event, that difference alone can dwarf what either platform charges.

To be fair to the free tier, at the small end it can be the cheapest option. On a £5,000 community fundraiser, 4% is £200, and a paid plan would likely cost more. The percentage only turns against you as the total climbs, which is precisely where galas and balls live, and precisely where we work.

Why does the percentage matter so much?

Because a cut of the giving is the exact thing this brand exists to argue against. It is the same objection we have to consignment lots and donor tips: a slice taken from generosity that was meant for the cause.

This is the whole of the belief we work from. The Fundraising Regulator’s code expects fundraising costs to be open and honest, and a 4% fee is disclosed rather than hidden, so this is not about anything underhand. It is about arithmetic. A percentage scales with success; a platform that takes nothing from donations does not; and on the size of event we work with, that gap is thousands of pounds.

There is a second cost that never shows on an invoice. When a platform takes a percentage, it has no particular reason to care whether your pledge is designed well or your running order builds, because it earns its slice either way. When the fee is flat and the same person is running the room, the only way that person wins is if your night does.

Moving to an Emma Live alternative

Switching is more straightforward than most charities expect, because the mechanics are similar. Both approaches run on your own Stripe account, so the money still lands directly with you, and your donor and bidder data stays yours. You can read how we handle that on our payments page, and the full toolset on the features page.

The real change is not technical. It is that you stop operating the software alone and gain the person who designs the giving mix, sets the running order, and stands up to run the auction and the pledge on the night. The platform becomes one component of an evening rather than the whole of your fundraising plan. In practice that also means one less system to learn and one less supplier to manage, because the platform and the person running your night are the same team.

Who suits which?

Emma Live suits a charity that wants capable all-in-one software and has the team, and the auctioneer, to run the night themselves. If you are confident on the strategy and the stage and just need the technology, a self-operated platform can be the right call, and Emma Live is a strong one.

A Generosity Works engagement suits a charity with a real target, usually a gala or dinner raising £30,000 or more, that wants the platform, the strategy and the live fundraising designed and delivered as one thing, for one fee agreed up front rather than a percentage. If nobody on your team wants to own the room on the night, that is exactly the gap we fill.

The platform is not sold on its own: it comes with Kevin’s hire, and his fee is the only money we take.

Let’s talk about your number

If you are comparing platforms, run the one sum that matters: take the total you expect to raise, apply Emma Live’s 4% to it, and compare that with a platform that takes no percentage. Then decide whether you also want the strategy and the auctioneer included, or just the software.

If you have a number to hit this year and you want the whole evening designed to keep as much of it as possible, book a discovery call and let’s talk about your number.