2023 Rock Integrated Services Survey

With an ever growing list of companies offering services in the Rock RMS space, we asked the community to share their experience with vendors.

Giving

My Well

Visit Website

9.0 / 10 23 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

Overall, the feedback on My Well is positive. Customers appreciate the cost-effectiveness of the service, with many highlighting the low fees as a key benefit. The company's commitment to supporting churches and ministries is also frequently mentioned and highly valued. The quality of customer service is generally praised, although some customers have noted that communication could be faster. The integration with Rock RMS is seen as successful, with the ...

Simple

Visit Website

9.0 / 10 23 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The majority of the survey respondents have a positive view of Simple's integration with Rock RMS. They praise Simple's exceptional customer service, their willingness to go above and beyond for the Rock community, and their proactive approach to problem-solving. Respondents also appreciate Simple's commitment to developing new functionalities and their quick response times. The integration of Simple's product into Rock is highly valued, as is their abil...

Donorbox

Visit Website

8.0 / 10 1 Response

AI Summarized Comments

The respondents found the Donorbox integration with Rock RMS to be easy to set up.

Tithe.ly

Visit Website

7.7 / 10 3 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The survey comments indicate that users find the Rock RMS integration with Tithe.ly easy to use and functioning well. However, there is some dissatisfaction expressed towards the overall company of Tithe.ly.

Kindrid

Visit Website

7.3 / 10 3 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The comments indicate a mixed response towards Kindrid and its competitor, MyWell. Some respondents prefer MyWell due to its better pricing and simpler text-to-give solution, which they find less cumbersome than web interfaces. However, others appreciate Kindrid for its commitment to inspiring generosity and providing value for its pricing. They commend Kindrid's infrastructure for its ability to handle large shifts in context, its effective API integrat...

Gyve

Visit Website

7.0 / 10 1 Response

AI Summarized Comments

The majority of the feedback indicates that Gyve is primarily associated with Cass bank churches, suggesting that these organizations may find the most benefit from its use.

Online Giving

Visit Website

6.6 / 10 5 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The majority of the feedback on Online Giving is positive, with users finding it easy to work with, responsive to issues, and effective in resolving significant problems. However, some concerns have been raised about a perceived negative attitude towards Rock RMS in recent years, causing hesitation in recommending them. Additionally, while Online Giving has a strong technical stack, there is a preference for them to utilize Rock's text giving features an...

Pushpay

Visit Website

5.5 / 10 24 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The survey comments indicate mixed reviews about Pushpay's integration with Rock RMS. Positive feedback highlights the ease of integration, good customer service, and the reliability of the service. However, there are significant concerns about the high cost, aggressive sales tactics, and lack of full integration with Rock RMS. Some users also expressed dissatisfaction with the company's perceived lack of integrity and support when considering a switch t...

SecureGive

Visit Website

5.3 / 10 6 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The feedback on SecureGive, a Rock RMS integrated partner, is mixed. Some respondents appreciate their responsiveness and helpfulness, and note that their interface runs smoothly. However, there are concerns about their model not being the best anymore and a lack of forward-thinking. There are also conflicting views on its integration with Rock, with one respondent stating it works well, while another disagrees. Some respondents have not worked with Secu...

Payment Data Systems

Visit Website

5.0 / 10 2 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The feedback indicates dissatisfaction with Payment Data Systems' integration with Rock RMS, citing non-functionality and high costs. The respondents also noted that this vendor transitioned from Arena to Rock RMS. Despite these issues, it was acknowledged that Payment Data Systems had a ministry-focused approach during their engagement, although they are reportedly no longer investing in Rock-related tools.

Vision2Systems

Visit Website

2.5 / 10 2 Responses

AI Summarized Comments

The feedback suggests that Vision2Systems' product is more competitive than complementary to Rock RMS. The sales team is perceived as passive-aggressive and overly professional for ministry work. Additionally, the respondent mentioned that they discontinued using Vision2Systems about 5-6 years ago due to its clunky system that required modernization. However, they acknowledged the possibility of improvements in the system since then.

Survey Processing Methodology

Reviews are displayed in descending order of their exact (non-rounded) rating, which is the average of the ratings given by the reviewers.

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 . Please summarize the comments in a way that is professional, concise, accurate.

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.