China’s religious social services complement the statutory welfare. Clarifying the situations and characteristics of different types of religious social services is conducive to promoting their better integration into public welfare. With the help of existing policy texts, research documents, and website data, this paper employs the thematic framework analysis method to analyze texts and documents and uses NVivo12 and SPSS26 to analyze website data. We explore the similarities and differences between contemporary Chinese Protestant social services and Buddhist social services from the perspectives of the service program, service organizations, and service resources, starting from multiple dimensions such as vertical and horizontal, similarity and difference. The main findings include the following: (a) In terms of service programs, Protestant social services are more inclusive than Buddhist social services and more public in terms of participant selection, religious environment, and the use of spiritual methods. Protestant social services are more open in terms of service value and public expression, while Buddhist social services are more localized and are politically consistent with the government. (b) In terms of service organizations, Protestant social services and Buddhist social services are based on three main types of legal persons. Protestant social services were the first to register organizational legal persons. Protestant social organizations differentiated into special service institutions and have core organizations with strong mobilization capabilities (CCC/TSPM). There is little difference between Protestant and Buddhist social services in private non-enterprise units and foundations (transparency index, business scope). (c) In terms of service resources, both Protestant and Buddhist social services rely on donations. The sources of funds for Protestant social services are more international, diversified, and market-oriented. In terms of government resource acquisition, Protestant social services actively “adapt”, while Buddhist social services passively “rely”.
