I know just taking a quick look at their respective websites, I would consider DU a little more helpful for my purposes.
We can also look at something else here.
We are going to say for this example that "ducks and duck hunters" and "conservation and education" are the same thing.
Delta uses 83% of funds for this, and DU uses 82%.
Fundraising is also a 1% difference with Delta at 16% and DU at 15%
The big difference is the amount used for management/admin, Delta is at 1%, DU is at a 3%
Whether this is bad, or good will depend on the amount of money these companies raise for their budgets.
Keeping the numbers easy for a general example, lets say both have $100 to work with for the year,
Delta would seem more charitable as $83 of it goes to conservation DU only $82. And they spend $16 on raising more money DU only spends $15, while paying staff $1 DU pays $3.
But if Delta only had $100, and DU had $200, DU would seem more charitable as DU new payouts for the above would be $164 for conservation, $30 on fundraising, and $6 for admin. They also very easily justify spending a little extra on staff at this point, as they are obviously worth their pay in this scenario due to being able to raise double the amount of funds as Delta.
Really gotta look at their yearly totals to get the idea of who does more, and even then, if they're all for you, who can be against you?
As a personal rant, the above formulas in this thread also show why investors are complete morons today. They only look at one percentage, the profit% (or, as most are looking at in the above examples, conservation%). I'd rather have 4% profit on 10 million in sales, than 6% on 5 million, but investors would just glance, and take the 6%. Rant over.
Shot my first turkey today...Scared the crap out of everyone in the frozen food section, it was awesome!