Loading…
Loading…
California · Nonprofit
WADHWANI INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL (California) is funded by 5 grantmakers whose IRS filings report $25,160,341 in grants to it, the largest being GATES FOUNDATION ($8,315,341). 5 of them have funded it in more than one year.
Against its field
WADHWANI INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL is better cushioned than half of the 437 science & tech nonprofits its size.
this organization peer median middle 50% of peers· 437 science & tech nonprofits $1M–$10M, FY2024
Revenue, expenses and net assets — each indexed to 100 at its first filing year, so you read the trajectory, not the magnitude. The shaded band is where the middle 50% of its peers' revenue would sit, given their growth.
The base broadened — 1 funders to 2 as grant income moved $1.5M → $2.1M.
2 of 5 of your funders are donor-advised or pass-through sponsors (tagged DAF) — 42% of grant dollars received. That money is really individual donors directing a sponsor; the institutions to cultivate are the non-DAF funders.
From the IRS filings of WADHWANI INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL’s funders (the co-funder graph). Association, not causation.
WADHWANI INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL leans on a few funders — its largest provides 33% of grant income and the top three 75%; half comes from just 2 funders.
the vertical line marks half of all grant income — 2 funders to its left
Largest funder’s share by year: 2018 100% · 2019 38% · 2020 55% · 2021 53% · 2022 45% · 2023 53% · 2024 52% — diversifying over time.
“Effective funders” = inverse Herfindahl index (1 / Σ shareᵢ²) — the number of equal-sized funders that would give the same concentration.
WADHWANI INSTITUTE FOR ARTIFICIAL is locally rooted: 51% of its grant income comes from California funders.
In-state vs out-of-state, by year
Grantmakers that don’t fund you yet, surfaced two ways: they back organizations that share your funders, or their grantees resemble your mission. The ones both signals agree on come first.
From the co-funder graph (funders backing at least two comparable organizations, shrunk for grantee count, donor-advised and mega-funds excluded) and the universe embeddings. A research starting point; overlap is association, not a guarantee of fit.
Grants and contracts to this organization from federal (USASpending) and state checkbooks, reconciled to its EIN. $15.2M on record.
Federal grants vs contracts are distinguished; state line items keep their reported category. Matched by name + geography (the BMF), so coverage is partial and precision-first.
Nonprofits whose mission and program text most resemble this one, by semantic similarity over the universe of US filings — the closest peers, and often the clearest route to shared or prospective funders.
Read directly from this organization’s own Form 990, as neutral context.
Every figure is read directly from IRS Form 990 / 990-PF e-file XML — this organization’s own return for FY2024 (financials across 2018–2024), and the filings of 5funders that report grants to it. “On record” means captured in the filings we have parsed — a funder that does not e-file, or whose grant detail is not itemized, will not appear. Filings run roughly 12–24 months behind. view filing