Church giving platforms: AI search visibility ranking (2026)
How AI search engines rank church giving platforms by visibility and citations. 20 brands measured monthly across Google AI Mode: which brands the AI names in answers, which domains it cites as sources, and how the leaders compare. Church giving platforms used to accept donations, manage recurring giving, support campaigns, and streamline stewardship and donor communication. Composite score: 70% visibility (% of AI answers naming the brand) + 30% citation rate (% citing the brand's domain). Full methodology →
Refreshed Jun 11, 2026Download this ranking as a PDF
We'll email it to you. One-off send — no list, no follow-up, no surprise marketing.
At a glance
What we observed in this categoryauto-generated
Tithe.ly dominates the church giving platforms category with a visibility score of 62.5%, more than 25 percentage points ahead of the next two brands, Givelify and Donorbox, which are tied at 37.5%. The category average visibility sits at just 8.8%, meaning Tithe.ly is operating at roughly seven times that baseline. This gap is significant because it suggests Google AI Mode has a strong default preference for Tithe.ly when surfacing recommendations, making it structurally harder for rivals to displace the leader in AI-generated answers.
Subsplash Giving presents the sharpest divergence between visibility and citation in this dataset. Its visibility score is just 12.5%, yet its citation rate reaches 62.5%, second only to Tithe.ly among all brands. Vanco Faith shows a similar pattern with 0% visibility but a 37.5% citation rate. This means AI responses frequently reference these brands as sources or supporting evidence without prominently naming them as recommended platforms, a meaningful distinction for analysts tracking named vs trusted presence.
Google AI Mode is the top engine for every brand in the dataset, confirming that this category's AI visibility battle is concentrated on a single surface. The top cited sources include third-party church leadership sites such as theleadpastor.com and growahealthychurch.com, alongside platform-owned domains like get.tithe.ly and subsplash.com. The presence of youtube.com and blog.outreach.com in the citation list suggests AI responses are drawing on mixed-format content, not purely text-based comparison pages.
Movers & shakers since last refresh
Biggest visibility risers
-
Tithe.ly 38% → 62% · rank #1 → #1+25pp
-
Donorbox 12% → 38% · rank #5 → #3+25pp
-
Givelify 25% → 38% · rank #3 → #2+12pp
Biggest visibility fallers
-
Pushpay 38% → 25% · rank #2 → #4-12pp
-
Planning Center Giving 12% → 0% · rank #6 → #8-12pp
-
Qgiv 12% → 0% · rank #7 → #17-12pp
The ranking
| # | Brand | Visibility | Citation | Top engine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
tithe.ly
|
62% | 75% | Google AI Mode |
Tithe.ly leads with a 62.5% visibility score, seven times the 8.8% category average, and holds the highest citation rate at 75%, though citations fell 12.5 points this period. |
||||
| 2 |
givelify.com
|
38% | 38% | Google AI Mode |
Givelify sits at 37.5% visibility and 37.5% citation, tied with Donorbox on both metrics, but gained 12.5 visibility points while its citation rate dropped 12.5 points. |
||||
| 3 |
donorbox.org
|
38% | 38% | Google AI Mode |
Donorbox rose two ranks and tripled its visibility from 12.5% to 37.5%, with citation also climbing 25 points, making it the strongest gainer in this audit period. |
||||
| 4 |
pushpay.com
|
25% | 38% | Google AI Mode |
Pushpay fell from rank 2 to rank 4, losing 12.5 visibility points to reach 25%, while its citation rate rose 12.5 points to 37.5%, signalling a named-versus-trusted split. |
||||
| 5 |
subsplash.com
|
12% | 62% | Google AI Mode |
Subsplash Giving has the widest visibility-to-citation gap in the top five, with only 12.5% visibility but a 62.5% citation rate, suggesting AI treats it as a reference source rather than a primary recommendation. |
||||
| 6 |
vancopayments.com
|
0% | 38% | Google AI Mode |
| 7 |
easytithe.com
|
0% | 12% | Google AI Mode |
| 8 |
planningcenter.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 9 |
securegive.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 10 |
fellowshipone.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 11 |
churchcenter.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 12 |
kindridgiving.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 13 |
faithlife.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 14 |
onrealm.org
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 15 |
abundant.co
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 16 |
touchpointsoftware.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 17 |
qgiv.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 18 |
breezechms.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 19 |
egiving.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
| 20 |
idonate.com
|
0% | 0% | Google AI Mode |
Sources AI engines trust in this category
Across the 8 buyer-intent queries we ran on church giving platforms, these are the domains Google AI Mode cited most often. If you're not on this list — or if your competitors are — that's a concrete PR / linkbuilding target.
How to read this ranking
Four things worth knowing before you act on the numbers above. These are the same definitions across every industry page — for category-specific observations, see the What we observed section above (where available) and the per-brand insights inline in the ranking.
Visibility = being named
A brand's visibility % is the share of AI answers that mention it by name in the response prose. This is who AI engines actively recommend to the buyer.
Citation rate = being trusted
Citation rate is the share of AI answers that include the brand's domain as a clickable source link. This is what the AI treats as authoritative evidence — different from being named.
Top engine differs by brand
The "top engine" column shows which AI surface each brand performs best on. Big gaps between a brand's score across engines usually points to specific content or schema gaps.
Rankings move month to month
AI engines re-crawl and re-rank on shorter cycles than classical search. We re-audit every brand on this list at least every 30 days and refresh this page automatically.
Get your own church giving platforms brand audited
The brands above were curated from public market-leader lists. Want the same measurement against your own brand — including the queries you appear on, which competitors get named instead, and a prioritised fix list? Run a free preview.
Frequently asked about church giving platforms AI visibility
Who leads AI visibility in church giving platforms?
Tithe.ly leads with a 62.5% visibility score and a 75% citation rate, both well above the next-ranked brands. The category average visibility is just 8.8%, making Tithe.ly's position particularly dominant.
Which church giving platform has the biggest gap between being cited and being recommended?
Subsplash Giving has only 12.5% visibility but a 62.5% citation rate, meaning AI frequently cites it as a source without naming it as a top recommendation. Vanco Faith shows a similar pattern with 0% visibility and 37.5% citation.
What sources does AI cite most for church giving platform research?
The most cited sources include theleadpastor.com, get.tithe.ly, youtube.com, subsplash.com, and growahealthychurch.com. This mix of third-party church leadership sites and platform-owned domains suggests AI is drawing on both editorial and branded content.
Which brands are rising in AI visibility for church giving platforms?
Tithe.ly gained 25 visibility points and Donorbox also gained 25 points, moving from 12.5% to 37.5% and climbing two ranks. Givelify gained 12.5 visibility points over the same period.
Which brands have lost AI visibility in this category recently?
Pushpay dropped 12.5 visibility points and fell from rank 2 to rank 4. Qgiv suffered the largest rank decline, falling 10 places to rank 17 with visibility dropping to 0%.
Is AI visibility in church giving platforms concentrated on one engine?
Yes, Google AI Mode is listed as the top engine for every brand in the dataset, indicating the entire visibility competition in this category is currently concentrated on that single surface.