Transparency alternatives to belboon
Other Affiliate and partner marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at belboon. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 40 that differ from belboon on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
belboon has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at belboon” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at belboon | Found at belboon, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reditusgetreditus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reditus | 74/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| PartnerStackpartnerstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PartnerStack | 61/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +2 | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Everfloweverflow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Everflow | 57/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Referral Rockreferralrock.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Referral Rock | 43/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| ReferralCandyreferralcandy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ReferralCandy | 22/100 | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 | Compare |
| UpPromoteuppromote.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpPromote | 45/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| LeadDynoleaddyno.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LeadDyno | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Partneropartnero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Partnero | 43/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing | 2 No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Affiseaffise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Affise | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Channelscalerchannelscaler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Channelscaler | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Post Affiliate Propostaffiliatepro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Post Affiliate Pro | 30/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 2 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Refersionrefersion.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Refersion | 27/100 | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | 3 Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, Named privacy contact | 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.