What percentage of GoFundMe campaigns succeed?

1. Why the headline numbers diverge — different samples, different targets

The analyses present divergent headline success rates because they measure different campaign populations and different timeframes, producing materially different results. One large 2024 analysis of nearly 2 million campaigns focused on U.S. health and emergency campaigns and found roughly 17% reached their goals, while a 2022 study specifically on medically related campaigns reported less than 12% reaching goals from 2016–2020 ^{[3] [1]}. A 2025 market data summary reported a higher overall success figure of about 27%, but it did not clarify whether that figure controlled for campaign category, geography, or time period ^[2]. These discrepancies reflect sampling and definitional differences — whether success means hitting the listed goal, whether campaigns are medical or general, and whether small, niche, or viral campaigns dominate the sample — and they underscore that any single percentage must be interpreted in its methodological context ^{[3] [1] [2]}.

2. The economics behind the inequality — a tiny share captures most dollars

Across the analyses, a consistent finding is a steep concentration of funds: the top few percent of campaigns capture an outsized share of total donations, skewing platform-wide metrics and masking widespread failure. One analysis found the top 5% of highest-earning campaigns accounted for about half of all dollars raised, signaling that average or median campaign performance is far weaker than headline totals like cumulative dollars raised since 2010 ^{[3] [5]}. This concentration explains why GoFundMe can report billions raised and millions of donors while most individual campaigns do not reach goals; platform-level totals reflect successful outliers more than typical outcomes. For donors and campaigners, the practical takeaway is that visibility, virality, and access to wealthier networks strongly predict success, leaving many earnest campaigns underfunded despite broad engagement metrics ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Medical campaigns stand out as particularly unlikely to reach goals

When the dataset is constrained to medically related fundraisers, the success picture becomes markedly worse. One peer-reviewed style analysis covering 2016–2020 reported under 12% of medical campaigns met their goals and that 16% received no donations at all, highlighting both low hit rates and a substantial fraction that attract zero support ^[1]. Another large 2024 study of nearly 2 million campaigns focused on health and emergency costs and estimated about 17% achieving targets — still far below parity ^[3]. These consistent lower figures for medical fundraising suggest that health-related financial needs cannot reliably be met via crowdfunding at scale, and that policy discussions about health-care financing should factor in the systemic unreliability of patient-directed crowdfunding as a safety net ^{[1] [3]}.

4. Platform totals can mislead — billions raised, but not evenly distributed

GoFundMe’s aggregate metrics — over $30 billion raised from 2010 through early 2024 and more than 150 million donors — create an impression of widespread success, but those totals mask distributional realities ^[5]. Large platform-wide sums are dominated by relatively few large campaigns; most campaigns raise modest amounts with median or mean values far below typical medical bills or major unexpected costs ^{[5] [3]}. Analysts caution that GoFundMe’s promotional materials and success stories highlight high-profile wins while concealing the many campaigns that never reach their goals, a pattern flagged in investigative pieces and analyses that stress transparency gaps about failures ^{[6] [7]}. This mismatch between promotional messaging and aggregate distribution is central to debates about whether crowdfunding is an effective public policy response to financial shocks ^{[6] [5]}.

5. What the different studies agree on — practical implications for users and policymakers

Despite methodological differences, the sources consistently agree on several facts: most campaigns do not meet fundraising goals, success is highly skewed toward a small number of campaigns, and medically related campaigns fare worse than general campaigns ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Estimates of campaign success therefore must be read with category and timeframe context; headline platform totals are not proxies for typical user outcomes ^{[5] [4]}. For users, this means relying on crowdfunding as a primary financing strategy is risky. For policymakers, the evidence indicates that gaps in health and social safety nets are not remedied by crowdfunding alone, and that oversight or supplemental policy measures should account for the unequal and often unsuccessful reality documented across these analyses ^{[1] [6]}.