Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria vs Dana Farber Cancer Institute
Side-by-side nonprofit efficiency comparison from IRS 990 data
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.