Giveasyoulive vs Lilo
Two "do good while you shop or search" platforms square off. Giveasyoulive is a UK charity-shopping cashback network; Lilo is a French search-and-shop engine that funds social and environmental projects. Different mechanics, different scale, one clear pick for someone who actually wants money reaching a cause.
The short answer
Giveasyoulive over Lilo for most cases. Giveasyoulive turns ordinary online purchases into real donations through a mature retailer network with transparent per-purchase tracking, where Lilo asks you.
- Pick Giveasyoulive if want measurable donations from shopping you already do, at thousands of UK retailers, without changing your browser habits
- Pick Lilo if in France, willing to make a search engine your default, and want to direct micro-funding to vetted social and environmental projects
- Also consider: Neither replaces direct giving — both skim affiliate or ad revenue, so the per-action amounts are small; use them as a topper, not a strategy.
— Nice Pick, opinionated tool recommendations
What they actually are
Let's kill the confusion first: these aren't apps you build on, they're charity-funding middlemen. Giveasyoulive is a UK shopping platform — you click through to a retailer (ASOS, Booking.com, John Lewis, thousands more), buy what you'd buy anyway, and a slice of the affiliate commission goes to a charity you pick. Lilo is a French search engine plus a shopping arm: every search earns 'water drops' you allocate to projects, funded by the ad revenue your queries generate. One monetizes your purchases, the other monetizes your attention. Both are legitimate, both are small-margin by design. Giveasyoulive is purchase-driven and language-native to UK shoppers; Lilo is search-driven and built for the French market. If you came here expecting a SaaS comparison, wrong aisle — but the verdict still holds: the model that captures real spend beats the one that captures clicks.
Where the money comes from
This is the whole game, so be honest about the math. Giveasyoulive earns affiliate commission on transactions and passes the bulk to your chosen charity — donations scale with what you spend, so a £400 booking can generate a genuinely useful amount. The flow is intuitive: see a retailer, shop, donation logged. Lilo's economics are thinner. Search ad revenue per query is tiny, so 'water drops' accumulate slowly and you need volume — hundreds of searches — before a meaningful sum reaches a project. Lilo's shopping cashback exists too, but it's secondary to the search hook. The uncomfortable truth: attention monetizes worse than spend. A person who shops normally through Giveasyoulive will out-donate a Lilo user who searches all day, unless that Lilo user also commits to making it their permanent default. Most won't. Friction kills good intentions, and switching your search engine is friction.
Friction and adoption
Giveasyoulive wins on the path of least resistance. A browser extension (Give as you Live Donate) catches eligible retailers automatically, so you don't have to remember to start from their site. That ambient nudge is the difference between a tool you use twice and one that quietly funds a charity for years. Lilo demands a behavioral change most people abandon: replacing Google or your existing default with a search engine you'll constantly second-guess on result quality. Every mediocre search result is a tax on your goodwill, and goodwill is exactly what these platforms run on. Lilo's privacy stance (less tracking) is a real selling point and earns it credit — but 'switch your search engine for the cause' is a harder ask than 'click through before you check out.' Adoption is destiny here. The platform people actually keep using is the one that does the funding, and Giveasyoulive asks for almost nothing.
Who should pick which
UK shopper who wants donations on autopilot: Giveasyoulive, no debate. Install the extension, pick a charity, forget about it, and your normal spending does the work. The retailer breadth and travel partners alone make it the higher-yield choice for anyone who books trips or buys online with any regularity. Lilo earns its keep in exactly one profile: a French-speaking user who values search privacy, is genuinely willing to live with a non-Google default, and likes the tangible 'allocate your drops to this project' ritual. That ritual is satisfying and the project vetting is a nice touch — but satisfaction isn't impact. For everyone else, Lilo is a worse search engine wearing a halo. My pick is Giveasyoulive because it captures real spend with near-zero friction, and in charity-funding, friction is the enemy that quietly wins. Don't overthink it — install one, fund something, move on.
Quick Comparison
| Factor | Giveasyoulive | Lilo |
|---|---|---|
| Funding mechanism | Affiliate commission on real purchases | Ad revenue from searches ('water drops') |
| Friction to adopt | Click-through or auto-catch extension | Must change default search engine |
| Donation yield per action | Scales with spend, can be meaningful | Tiny per search, needs high volume |
| Market fit | UK-native, thousands of retailers | France-focused search + shopping |
| Privacy angle | Standard affiliate tracking | Privacy-respecting, less tracking |
The Verdict
Use Giveasyoulive if: You want measurable donations from shopping you already do, at thousands of UK retailers, without changing your browser habits.
Use Lilo if: You are in France, willing to make a search engine your default, and want to direct micro-funding to vetted social and environmental projects.
Consider: Neither replaces direct giving — both skim affiliate or ad revenue, so the per-action amounts are small; use them as a topper, not a strategy.
Giveasyoulive turns ordinary online purchases into real donations through a mature retailer network with transparent per-purchase tracking, where Lilo asks you to switch your default search engine and trade water-drop points — a higher-friction, lower-yield model.
Related Comparisons
Disagree? nice@nicepick.dev