Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria vs Sutter Bay Medical Foundation
Side-by-side nonprofit efficiency comparison from IRS 990 data
Verdict
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation earns a higher Efficiency Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at 75/100 (B). Sutter Bay Medical Foundation directs 78.0% of expenses to programs. CEO compensation: Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at $0 vs Sutter Bay Medical Foundation at $0.
| Metric | Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria | Sutter Bay Medical Foundation |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency Score Composite of program ratio, revenue growth, reserves, and CEO comp | 75/100 (B) | 80/100 (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 | $3.5B |
| Total Expenses | $5.0B | $3.4B |
| Total Assets | $9.3B | $2.1B |
| Category | Medical Research | Medical Research |
| Location | Switzerland, Unknown | Sacramento, California |
Sutter Bay Medical Foundation earns a higher Efficiency Score of 80/100 (A) compared to Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at 75/100 (B). Sutter Bay Medical Foundation directs 78.0% of expenses to programs. CEO compensation: Global Fund To Fight Aids Tuberculosis And Malaria at $0 vs Sutter Bay Medical Foundation at $0.