1. The purpose is different. Some scholars believe that "the right of association is actually the affirmation of group interests by the Constitution, and it is a respect for the right of people to form groups for the purpose of mutual benefit. Pure private interests or pure public welfare purposes are not enough to form the desire of association, but if there is no element of mutual benefit, it can be asserted that any association is blind and irrational. Although there is nothing wrong with making the above judgment on association from the perspective of rational people, public welfare social organizations pursue public welfare and generally have no members. Even if there are members of community-based public welfare organizations, their members generally do not enjoy the service privileges provided by the organizations; Mutually beneficial social organizations pursue the interests of their members, who are not only the founders of the organization, the decision makers of organizational affairs, but also the consumers of organizational products and services. Of course, the difference of interest goals does not exclude that the community-based public welfare social organizations give their members certain symbolic benefits under certain circumstances, nor does it exclude that the mutually beneficial social organizations seek benefits for the unspecified public under certain circumstances, but this is quite different from the requirement that public welfare social organizations must serve social welfare.

2. Different openness. Generally speaking, mutually beneficial social organizations are closed groups with the same status, interests and interests. In terms of establishment and membership, members of mutually beneficial social organizations are a group of specific people, and their membership is restricted by occupation, hobbies and industries. However, public welfare social organizations often hope that more people will participate in the establishment of the organization. Even if public welfare organizations adopt the form of community organizations, their membership is generally not subject to any restrictions. Not only that, the governance institutions of public welfare social organizations are also open to the public. Therefore, public welfare social organizations are open.

3. Asset allocation and disposal are different. Generally speaking, neither public welfare social organizations nor mutual benefit social organizations can take profit as their main purpose, nor can they distribute the interests among their members like profit-making organizations. However, whether they can distribute assets to their members upon termination is different. Since the property of a mutually beneficial social organization mainly comes from membership fees (in Japan, it is called a fund or social donation in order to distinguish it from the shares or contributions of the company's shareholders), the preferential tax treatment it enjoys is also relatively limited. Therefore, once the organization is dissolved, the property can be distributed among its members, or the way of punishment can be decided by the general meeting of members, and the state generally cannot interfere. However, public welfare social organizations, because their property sources are not only membership fees (applicable to community-based public welfare social organizations), but also social donations and government subsidies, and they enjoy higher tax preferential treatment, their property has obvious public nature. Therefore, the laws of general countries stipulate that when public welfare social organizations are dissolved, they should be handed over to other public organizations or the state treasury with similar purposes, and should not be distributed among members.

4. The degree of autonomy is different. Because the interest scope of mutually beneficial social organizations mainly concerns the interests of the members of the organizations, there is little intervention by national legislation, and the governance of such organizations mainly depends on internal governance structure and self-discipline mechanism. However, public welfare social organizations enjoy high preferential tax treatment because of their governmental and social sources of funds, and involve a high degree of social welfare, so the state has more intervention and supervision in its organization and behavior, and its degree of autonomy is obviously low.

5. The path of organizational change is different. Once a public welfare social organization is established, it should serve the public welfare goals. Even if there are major obstacles in its existence, it cannot be transformed into a profit-making organization or a mutually beneficial social organization. Mutual benefit social organizations can be transformed into profit-making organizations or public welfare social organizations. First, the subjective status is different. No matter whether a public welfare social organization adopts a public welfare legal person, a partnership or an individual form, it can be an independent organization in law. The charitable trust only shows a legal relationship created by the trustor placing the trust property under the control of the trustee for a specific public purpose. No matter whether the trustee of a charitable trust is a legal person or other forms of subject, and whether the trustee has ownership or management right over the trust property, the charitable trust itself only shows a relationship or an act rather than an organization.

secondly, the restrictions are different. In the legal relationship of charitable trust, the trustee is restricted by the way of property management and use stipulated in the trust agreement. Courts, beneficiaries and other interested parties have relatively more rights to intervene in the trustee's behavior, and even obtain the right to execute the trust property through direct litigation against the trustee. However, public welfare social organizations are less interfered and restricted by donors, beneficiaries, their stakeholders and courts.

thirdly, the degree of complexity is different. The establishment of charitable trust is simple and flexible, and in civil law countries, it needs the permission of the target institution; In Britain and the United States, however, only the client and the trustee need to sign a contract, and only need to apply to the registration authority for registration according to the corresponding conditions, without the approval of a specific authority. The establishment of public welfare social organizations, especially public welfare legal persons, is more complicated.

fourthly, the operating costs are different. Because the charitable trust does not need an organization, it can be achieved by others at a small cost, and the expenses required for the management organization, staffing and office expenses of public welfare social organizations are obviously far greater than those of charitable trusts.