Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria vs Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Side-by-side nonprofit efficiency comparison from IRS 990 data
Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria (B) and Dana Farber Cancer Institute (A) are close on the LakeQuality efficiency rubric. With grades this close, the choice between them turns on factors outside the rubric: mission alignment with donor priorities, program track record, or geographic focus.
With composite scores this close, the decision should weight non-financial factors: the specific program work each organization does, the geography they serve, the donor's relationship with leadership, and the marginal value of each additional dollar of funding to the organization.
Verdict
Dana Farber Cancer Institute earns a higher Efficiency Score of 87/100 (A) compared to Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at 75/100 (B). Dana Farber Cancer Institute directs 78.0% of expenses to programs. CEO compensation: Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at $0 vs Dana Farber Cancer Institute at $0.
| Metric | Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria | Dana Farber Cancer Institute |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency Score Composite of program ratio, revenue growth, reserves, and CEO comp | 75/100 (B) | 87/100 (A)* |
| Program Spending Ratio % of expenses going to programs (higher means more goes to mission) | 78.0%* | 78.0% |
| CEO Compensation | $0 | $0 |
| Revenue | $6.3B | $3.4B |
| Total Expenses | $5.0B | $3.0B |
| Total Assets | $9.3B | $4.7B |
| Category | Medical Research | Medical Research |
| Location | Switzerland, Unknown | Boston, Massachusetts |
Dana Farber Cancer Institute earns a higher Efficiency Score of 87/100 (A) compared to Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at 75/100 (B). Dana Farber Cancer Institute directs 78.0% of expenses to programs. CEO compensation: Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at $0 vs Dana Farber Cancer Institute at $0.