AI Generated Summary
Feedback on Pushpay presents a complex but consistent narrative: it is widely appreciated for its strong and improving integration with Rock RMS, dependable functionality, and overall reliability in managing giving and financial workflows. Many users describe it as a trustworthy partner with good customer service and a user-friendly platform. However, significant concerns were raised regarding high costs, limited flexibility, incomplete data syncing into Rock, and inconsistent support experiences—particularly during transitions or technical issues. Several churches expressed frustration with features like partial refunds, dual logins, and the need for separate gateways for events and missions due to integration limitations. There is also caution surrounding Pushpay’s ownership of competitive platforms like CCB, which raises questions about long-term alignment with Rock. While some churches continue using Pushpay due to legacy dependencies and donor retention concerns, others are considering alternatives for cost savings and more streamlined integration.
Survey Processing Methodology
All reviews in this survey were voluntarily submitted by members of the community, and Spark has refrained providing any ratings themselves. The overall ratings presented in this report represent an average of the community's individual ratings. The comments provided by participants have been consistently summarized using ChatGPT with the guiding prompt below.
Below are a series of comments from a survey we did on a Rock RMS integrated partner My Well. Please summarize the comments in a way that is professional, concise, and accurate and in a single paragraph.
It's important to note that a very small subset of ratings was excluded from the analysis for the following reasons:
- Submissions that provided a rating score but accompanied it with comments indicating they had insufficient knowledge of the service.
- Ratings submitted by integrated partners who rated either themselves or their competitors were omitted from the analysis. These ratings were deemed potentially biased due to a perceived conflict of interest.