GiveWell decides what to fund with a single threshold: a program must be estimated at some multiple of its benchmark, where the benchmark is the value of doubling consumption for one year for a person living at the $2.15-a-day poverty line (before November 2025 it was expressed as “multiples of cash,” with about the same value).
As of May 2026 that multiple is 6x. In November 2025 it was 8x. For much of the previous few years it was 10x.
What a lower bar means
The bar is not a quality judgment. It is a clearing price. GiveWell has a pool of money and a list of opportunities sorted by estimated cost-effectiveness; the bar is where the money runs out. It moves for two reasons:
- More money. Coefficient Giving (the renamed Open Philanthropy) said it would direct $175 million to GiveWell’s recommendations for 2026, and GiveWell’s own donor base has grown.
- Fewer opportunities at the very top. The most cost-effective programs, such as seasonal malaria chemoprevention in the highest-burden districts, can only absorb so much before the next district is less deadly and therefore more expensive per life.
A falling bar is therefore a sign that GiveWell can fund deeper into its list. Programs at 6x or 7x that would have been turned away in 2025 now get grants.
What 6x buys
At the benchmark, $1 produces about the welfare of doubling a very poor person’s consumption for a year, per dollar. At 6x, each dollar does six times that. GiveWell’s top charities are estimated well above the bar; the bar matters for the newer, less-studied programs it is expanding into, such as water chlorination, syphilis screening in pregnancy and, since 2025, a search for income-raising programs beyond cash.
The aid-cut context
The cuts to US and European foreign aid in 2025 opened funding gaps in exactly the programs GiveWell studies. Some of those gaps are very cost-effective to fill: a nets campaign that lost its government match is cheaper to complete than to start. A lower bar lets GiveWell fund more of them. It also means the marginal grant is, by construction, less cost-effective than it was at 8x, so donors should not read “6x” as “everything GiveWell funds is six times cash.” The average is higher; the last dollar is at the bar.
For a donor
- If you give through GiveWell’s funds, nothing changes for you: they spend down the list and stop at the bar.
- If you pick charities yourself, the top four remain far above the bar, and the bar’s fall is a hint that the field can absorb more than it did a year ago.
Method notes
Bar figures are quoted from GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness pages. The Coefficient Giving allocation is from its own announcement, which we could read only in summary at the time of writing; the $175 million figure is as reported there.
Sources
Figures come from the cited sources as of the dates shown. Cost-effectiveness estimates change as programs and evidence change; check the source before giving. We are not financial advisers and receive nothing from any charity named here.