Transparency helps you ask better questions before donating. Can you identify the legal organization? See the reporting year? Understand its programmes and find the source behind a financial figure?
Our research covers 1,000 charities. For this article, we selected ten established organizations from several countries and ordered that group by transparency score.
Transparency scores are research assessments out of 100, not external certifications. Equal scores are ties; alphabetical ordering determines their displayed positions.
The wider scorecard
| Charity | Transparency score (%) | Program score (%) | Overhead score (%) | Completion score (%) | Halal score /10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yaqeen Institute | 88% | 88% | 12% | 90% | 8.2 |
| Islamic Relief Australia | 88% | 87% | 13% | 87% | 7.6 |
| Indus Hospital | 88% | 85% | 15% | 90% | 8.3 |
| Edhi Foundation | 88% | 85% | 15% | 92% | 7.9 |
| Al-Khair Foundation | 88% | 80% | 20% | 90% | 8.0 |
| SIUT | 90% | 94% | 6% | 92% | 8.0 |
| National Zakat Foundation | 90% | 84% | 16% | 92% | 8.3 |
| Islamic Relief USA | 90% | 80% | 20% | 88% | 7.7 |
| MATW | 91% | 97% | 3% | 97% | 8.7 |
| Ummah Welfare Trust | 92% | 98% | 2% | 88% | 8.6 |
Program, overhead, transparency and completion values are stored 0 to 100 assessment scores shown as percentages. They are not audited financial ratios, guarantees about how donations are spent or observed project-completion rates. MATW does not lead on transparency, but it has the highest halal score, 8.7/10, and completion score, 97%, in this group. SIUT combines 90% transparency with 94% programme and 6% overhead, giving specialist-healthcare donors a different strong case. The result depends on the purpose and the weight given to each measure.
UWT's funding check contains a finding about a separately described interest-disposal route; its connection check remains Unknown, while its legal check passes within the recorded scope. The other nine have Pass for funding, connection and legal screening. UWT's first place on transparency therefore should not be read as a claim of complete Shariah clearance or verified absence of every connection.
10. Yaqeen Institute: 88%
This US profile focuses on Islamic research and publications. It is relevant for donors interested in supporting knowledge and faith education.
At 88, it ties with four other entries in this group, but it is the clearest research-and-publication option. Its relevance is funding intellectual resources for Muslim communities, not delivering supplies. A donor interested in that purpose has a reason to consider it even though this particular transparency ordering places it tenth.
9. Islamic Relief Australia: 88%
This is the Australian profile, not the UK or US entity. National affiliates can have different accounts, reporting periods and legal responsibilities.
Its named projects include Domestic Support in Australia and International Aid. That makes it useful for Australian donors who want a domestic option alongside overseas work. Its 88 ties with Yaqeen, Indus, Edhi and Al-Khair, but those scores do not make the organizations interchangeable or establish equal quality across different national reporting systems.
8. Indus Hospital & Health Network: 88%
Its Pakistan profile lists Hospital Operations and Network Expansion.
Its mission is free healthcare regardless of ability to pay. Hospital Operations and Network Expansion therefore describe two sides of access: providing treatment and extending the system through which it is available. That gives donors a concrete healthcare rationale beyond the score of 88, without requiring an unsupported claim about lower costs or superior clinical outcomes.
7. Edhi Foundation: 88%
Listed work includes an Emergency Ambulance Service, Orphan Care Centers and Free Medical Clinics.
Ambulances, clinics and orphan care respond to different points of vulnerability. That breadth is the strongest reason to consider Edhi within the 88-point tie: a donor can support a general welfare purpose rather than a single specialist medical field. Its mission's non-discrimination principle also makes clear that the intended benefit is not restricted by recipients' religion.
6. Al-Khair Foundation: 88%
The UK profile includes an education-focused mission alongside wider charitable work.
Its mission includes education for young people and adults alongside wider charitable projects. That distinguishes it from the Pakistan healthcare providers beside it in the ranking. Its score of 88 describes reporting assessment within this selection, while its educational purpose determines whether it is a relevant destination for the donation itself.
5. Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation: 90%
SIUT combines Hospital Operations with Medical Research.
Its mission specifically names free kidney care, urology and transplantation. That makes it a more specialist choice than Indus's wider hospital-network model or Edhi's general welfare services. At 90 it is among the highest-scoring entries here, but the more compelling reason for a donor to choose it is an intention to fund that kind of treatment.
4. National Zakat Foundation: 90%
The UK profile lists hardship and debt-relief programmes.
Its 90 matches SIUT and Islamic Relief USA, but its purpose is much narrower geographically: hardship and debt relief in Britain. That focus can be a benefit for a donor who wants Zakat to reach people locally. A worldwide shortlist should not obscure the fact that the most relevant charity may work in only one country.
3. Islamic Relief USA: 90%
Listed projects include emergency response, orphan sponsorship, and water and sanitation.
At 90, it offers a high-scoring broad humanitarian option in this selection. Emergency response, sponsorship and water projects cover immediate need, continuing care and infrastructure. This mix is a better reason for an internationally focused donor to consider it than the assumption that a higher score alone guarantees a better result.
2. MATW Project: 91%
The Australian profile includes a completed Togo Development Center and ongoing orphan education.
Its 91 places it just below the leader. The completed Togo Development Center and ongoing Orphan Education show why one delivery label cannot describe all of its work: infrastructure can reach handover while support for children continues. Its estimated total-expense field remains a limitation of the financial record, not a reason to reinterpret the transparency score as a financial audit.
1. Ummah Welfare Trust: 92%
The UK profile includes orphan sponsorship, refugee support and water wells, plus a source for its published donation policy.
At 92 it leads this curated group. The combination of refugee support, orphan sponsorship, water wells and a documented donation-policy source gives donors several aspects of its operation to consider. That explains why it is a strong transparency-led candidate for broad humanitarian giving, while NZF or SIUT may be a more precise match for local Zakat or specialist healthcare.
Compare reporting without losing sight of purpose
Our reading of the results: Ummah Welfare Trust and MATW lead this selected group on the stored score. For specialist healthcare, SIUT has the strongest score among the providers included; for UK hardship support, NZF matches that score with a local focus. The charities tied at 88 should not be separated on the strength of their displayed positions.
This is where Zakat+ is useful beyond a top-ten list: its programme context and Pro financial comparison help explain why a donor might reasonably choose a specialist over the highest-scoring general charity. Different currencies, periods and accounting labels still need to remain visible in a cross-border comparison.
