Transparency alternatives to Awin
Other Affiliate and partner marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Awin. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from Awin on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Awin has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Awin” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Awin | Found at Awin, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reditusgetreditus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reditus | 74/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| PartnerStackpartnerstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PartnerStack | 61/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Everfloweverflow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Everflow | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| UpPromoteuppromote.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpPromote | 45/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Partneropartnero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Partnero | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Referral Rockreferralrock.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Referral Rock | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Public pricing | 2 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| Channelscalerchannelscaler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Channelscaler | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| LeadDynoleaddyno.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LeadDyno | 43/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Affiseaffise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Affise | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 1 Status page with history | Compare |
| Affonsoaffonso.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Affonso | 39/100 | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | 3 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | Compare |
| ingeniousingenioustechnologies.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ingenious | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
| Webgainswebgains.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Webgains | 39/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Data location stated | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.