SaaS Ranking

Transparency alternatives to ReferralCandy

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

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

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

VendorScoreFound there, not found at ReferralCandyFound at ReferralCandy, not found there
Reditusgetreditus.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Reditus 74/100 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 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 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Everfloweverflow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Everflow 57/100 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Channelscalerchannelscaler.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Channelscaler 39/100 4 Data location stated, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
ingeniousingenioustechnologies.comSee also Transparency alternatives to ingenious 39/100 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Webgainswebgains.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Webgains 39/100 4 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
belboonbelboon.comSee also Transparency alternatives to belboon 35/100 4 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, +1 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
UpPromoteuppromote.comSee also Transparency alternatives to UpPromote 45/100 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 1 Status page with history Compare
LeadDynoleaddyno.comSee also Transparency alternatives to LeadDyno 43/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Partneropartnero.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Partnero 43/100 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) Compare
Referral Rockreferralrock.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Referral Rock 43/100 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Named privacy contact 1 Status page with history Compare
Affiseaffise.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Affise 39/100 3 Data location stated, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Named privacy contact 1 Status page with history 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.