SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to Daisycon

Other Affiliate and partner marketing vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Daisycon. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.

12 shown of 40 that differ from Daisycon on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Daisycon has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Daisycon” is the one that closes them.

VendorScoreFound there, not found at DaisyconFound at Daisycon, not found there
Reditusgetreditus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reditus 74/100 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
PartnerStackpartnerstack.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PartnerStack 61/100 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 2 HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Everfloweverflow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Everflow 57/100 4 Data processing agreement, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
LeadDynoleaddyno.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LeadDyno 43/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Referral Rockreferralrock.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Referral Rock 43/100 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 1 HTTPS enforced with HSTS Compare
Channelscalerchannelscaler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Channelscaler 39/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Post Affiliate Propostaffiliatepro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Post Affiliate Pro 30/100 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Named privacy contact 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Rewardfulgetrewardful.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Rewardful 26/100 3 Public pricing, Certifications named, Named privacy contact 2 Data location stated, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
UpPromoteuppromote.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpPromote 45/100 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing nothing Compare
Partneropartnero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Partnero 43/100 2 Data processing agreement, Public pricing 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Affiseaffise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Affise 39/100 2 Public pricing, Named privacy contact nothing Compare
ingeniousingenioustechnologies.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ingenious 39/100 2 Data processing agreement, Named privacy contact 1 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.