Guide Dogs vs RNIB — charity comparison
In short: Guide Dogs: Guide dogs, mobility and sight-loss support. RNIB: Sight-loss information, practical services and rights. Match the work to your purpose, then compare dated accounts and evidence.
Data from Charity Commission register, last updated .
This comparison brings together registered purposes, source-checked interpretation and the accounts held by CharityCompare. The organisations may use different reporting periods and definitions. Read the source notes before comparing totals or treating a financial score as an assessment of programme results.
Key differences
| What to compare | THE GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND ASSOCIATION | THE ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BLIND PEOPLE |
|---|---|---|
| Registered work and operating model | Guide dogs, mobility and sight-loss support. | Sight-loss information, practical services and rights. |
| What to consider | The register includes mobility and rehabilitation beyond guide-dog partnerships. Compare waiting times, suitability and sustained mobility outcomes within each service, rather than assuming all expenditure is dog training. | Its activities span accessible information, education, practical support and rights. A comparison with a guide-dog charity should distinguish these broader functions before interpreting cost differences. |
| Access and practical checks | Check the particular mobility or guide-dog service and its assessment process. Service eligibility is broader and more specific than the organisation’s headline name. | Use RNIB’s official information and support routes for the help needed. Check access arrangements for individual products and services. |
| Sourced result or evidence gap | No programme outcome has been source-checked for this profile. This is a gap in our coverage, not evidence of no impact. | No programme outcome has been source-checked for this profile. This is a gap in our coverage, not evidence of no impact. |
What the latest filings show
Figures from the accounts held in our dated dataset; the live register may contain newer filings. Ratios can span multiple years, as labelled. Clarity scores use our methodology.
| Metric | THE GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND ASSOCIATION | THE ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BLIND PEOPLE |
|---|---|---|
| Latest accounts year in our snapshot | 2025 | 2025 |
| Financial snapshot refreshed | 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-06 |
| Ratio reporting window | 3-yr avg | 3-yr avg |
| Overall score | 88/100 (4★) | 72/100 (3★) |
| Accountability & Finance | 100/100 | 75/100 |
| Spend on charitable activities | 73% of expenditure | 62% of expenditure |
| Fundraising efficiency | £3.8 total income per £1 fundraising (2023–2025, disclosed years) | £5.4 total income per £1 fundraising (2023–2025, disclosed years) |
| Latest income | £164m | £96m |
| Fundraising spend | 27% of expenditure | 20% of expenditure |
| Reserves | 7 months | 7 months |
| Accounts filing | On time | Late |
| Data confidence | high | medium |
| Charity number | 209617 | 226227 |
THE GUIDE DOGS FOR THE BLIND ASSOCIATION on the register · THE ROYAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BLIND PEOPLE on the register
Considering Guide Dogs
- Guide dogs, mobility and sight-loss support.
- Check the particular mobility or guide-dog service and its assessment process. Service eligibility is broader and more specific than the organisation’s headline name.
Considering RNIB
- Sight-loss information, practical services and rights.
- Use RNIB’s official information and support routes for the help needed. Check access arrangements for individual products and services.
Common questions
Guide Dogs or RNIB: which should I support?
There is no universal winner. Guide dogs, mobility and sight-loss support. Sight-loss information, practical services and rights. Check the programme that interests you, the accounts period and the evidence behind any result. A financial rating is not an impact assessment.
Can I compare the headline results directly?
Only if the definitions, population, geography and reporting periods match. Research expenditure, service contacts and lasting outcomes measure different things. The source notes explain any figures included here.
How we score charities +
The Clarity Score is a 100-point rating from UK regulator filings (Charity Commission for England and Wales, OSCR and CCNI). Four pillars — Accountability & Transparency (40), Financial Health (30), Financial Efficiency (20), and Community Support (10) — each scored on a continuous scale, not pass/fail cutoffs. A statutory inquiry sets the score to 0 automatically.
Accountability & Transparency
Scored from filings
40 points — filing history (15), trustee oversight (15, scaling up to a board of three or more), declared policies (10).
Financial Health
Scored from filings
30 points — reserves (15, full marks 3–24 months, tapering on both sides), income stability (10), liabilities to assets (5, scaling down as debt rises).
Financial Efficiency
Scored from filings
20 points — program expense ratio and fundraising cost, each on a graduated scale (not a single cutoff). Kept at 20% of the total: financial-ratio scoring alone is not a reliable effectiveness signal (see "why not just an overhead ratio?" below).
Community Support
Scored from filings
10 points — volunteer-to-staff ratio from Charity Commission workforce data, scaling continuously up to a 2:1 ratio.
Overall score
Sum of all pillar points. Display stars use the same bands as the labels: 90–100 → 5★ Exceptional; 75–89 → 4★ Good; 60–74 → 3★ Needs improvement; 1–59 → 2★ Poor; 0 → not rated.