Human Appeal USA and MATW Project both run humanitarian programmes relevant to Muslim donors. Their records, however, tell different stories about scale, spending, delivery assessments and fundraising disclosure.
MATW leads on the five research scores compared below. But the more useful question is why that matters alongside the money, projects and fundraising arrangements. A score can favour one organization while a donor's intended programme still points to the other.
Monetary amounts below are presented in US dollars for easier comparison. Reporting years remain labeled.
Start with the correct organizations
Human Appeal USA is the US entity with EIN 87-2410117. Its main financial breakdown in this snapshot is for 2023, in US dollars.
MATW Project is the Australian profile. Its main financial breakdown is for 2025, in Australian dollars.
Human Appeal's UK profile is a separate record. Comparing that organization's accounts would answer a different question.
The distinction is essential because Human Appeal's UK organization is not interchangeable with its US organization. A statement about one entity's spending should not be transferred to another simply because the names are similar.
How the five research scores compare
| Metric | Human Appeal USA | MATW Project |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency score (%) | 85% | 91% |
| Program score (%) | 94% | 97% |
| Overhead score (%) | 6% | 3% |
| Completion score (%) | 78% | 97% |
| Halal score /10 | 8.2/10 | 8.7/10 |
These are research assessment scores, not newly audited ratios or religious certifications. The project-completion score is not established simply by counting the projects named here.
MATW's advantage is broad rather than confined to one measure: transparency is 6 percentage points higher, program score 3 percentage points higher, completion score 19 percentage points higher, and screening score 0.5 points higher, while overhead score is 3 percentage points lower. The largest difference is the completion assessment. That is a reason to prefer MATW if these scores drive the decision, but it is not evidence that MATW completed 19% more projects.
Both charities have Pass for funding, connection and legal checks in the recorded screening. Human Appeal USA's Shariah summary describes separate Zakat and Sadaqah streams; MATW's describes halal-compliant funding with no identified concern in that record. These are scoped research findings, not a religious certification of every payment. MATW's 8.7/10 versus 8.2/10 halal score supports its stronger combined profile, but the common Pass outcomes should not be misrepresented as one charity failing compliance.
Financial figures in US dollars
| Figure in USD | Human Appeal USA, 2023 | MATW, 2025 (converted) |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $10,889,699 | $49,927,946 |
| Programme expenses | $5,815,226 | $55,145,279 |
| Administration expenses | $371,184 | $1,721,616 |
| Fundraising-expense field | $0 | $0 |
MATW's converted total expenses are $56,866,896, explicitly marked estimated in the financial record. Human Appeal USA's total is $6,186,410.
Conversion basis: AUD amounts use A$1 = US$0.66834, the 31 December 2025 reference rate, rounded to the nearest dollar. This is a common presentation rate, not a restatement of historical accounts or an inflation adjustment. Original MATW amounts are A$74,704,411 revenue, A$82,510,817 programme expenses, A$2,575,959 administration and A$85,086,776 total expenses.
The zero fundraising fields do not establish that neither organization paid for fundraising. Human Appeal USA's named fundraiser disclosures below concern a different year and a separate disclosure section. Do not combine them with its 2023 breakdown.
The figures also show a large difference in scale. At the stated conversion rate, MATW's revenue is approximately 4.6 times Human Appeal USA's, and its programme expenses approximately 9.5 times as large. That describes the periods compared, not a trend or a claim that a larger organization delivers better value.
Human Appeal USA's programme expenses of $5,815,226 represent approximately 94.0% of its $6,186,410 expense total, with administration approximately 6.0%. MATW's comparable programme share is approximately 97.0%, using its explicitly estimated total. That difference is about 3 percentage points, much smaller than the gap in absolute spending. The comparison therefore favours MATW on these figures without requiring the stronger claim that the larger budget itself makes it better.
Projects and delivery context
Human Appeal USA's profile lists Emergency Relief, Orphan Sponsorship and Education Programs.
MATW's lists a completed Togo Development Center and ongoing Orphan Education.
This is a meaningful difference in the evidence available here. MATW has a specifically named completed infrastructure project; Human Appeal USA's descriptions concern ongoing relief, sponsorship and education. That gives MATW a more concrete completion example within these records. It does not prove a 97% organization-wide delivery rate, nor does an ongoing sponsorship programme imply delay: continuing support is part of that programme's purpose.
Compensation: different disclosure formats
Human Appeal USA's stored FY2024 compensation record lists Mohamed Fathy Ashmawey, CEO, $204,405, and Fariba Ludin, Secretary/Executive Assistant, $50,136.
MATW's stored FY2023 key-management record gives bands rather than names. Converted to USD at the same reference rate, there is one person each in $66,834–100,250, $100,251–133,667, and $133,668–167,084. The original bands are A$100,000–149,999, A$150,000–199,999 and A$200,000–249,999.
These are different periods and disclosure formats, now expressed in the same currency. The bands do not support an exact comparison of individual salaries or total remuneration.
Named professional fundraisers
Human Appeal USA's stored FY2024 Schedule G data lists four named payments totaling $2,201,153. The two largest are:
- Khaled Beydoun: $2,040,887 paid; $7,120,440 reported as raised for online LaunchGood campaigns.
- Razwana Fazil: $105,116 paid; no amount raised recorded in the row.
The Beydoun row's payment is approximately 28.7% of the amount reported as raised for that activity. This is not the charity's overall fundraising ratio and does not identify which restricted funds financed the payment.
MATW has no named professional-fundraiser rows in the snapshot. That is not evidence that it made no such payments.
The useful donor question is whether the selected appeal explains its fundraising arrangements and the treatment of Zakat or restricted gifts.
The conclusion
For a donor choosing on the five research scores and the financial figures presented here, we favour MATW. Its advantage spans every score, its recorded programme-spending share is higher, and the Togo center provides a concrete completed-project example. The estimated expense total remains an important qualification.
Human Appeal USA remains relevant to a donor seeking its particular relief or sponsorship programmes through the US entity. Its named-fundraiser disclosures warrant attention, but MATW's lack of named rows is not proof of lower professional-fundraising costs. We would not turn an absence of equivalent disclosure into a financial victory.
Zakat+ Pro brings the financial categories, research scores and separately dated disclosures into a side-by-side view. The benefit is understanding the reasons behind a comparison, not simply being given a winner.
For Zakat, the specific distribution policy remains important. An organization-level screening score is not a substitute for a fund-specific eligibility assessment.
Sources
- Human Appeal USA entity and filing locator
- MATW Australian financial document
- Compensation and fundraiser values come from separately dated disclosure records. The main financial-source links locate the financial reports; the periods of individual disclosures remain labeled above.
