Tools and providers
Part of Affiliate marketing tools and providers for your programme
What an affiliate marketing supplier comparison means for English brands
How to run an affiliate marketing supplier comparison for an English brand in 2026, covering evidence, consumer law, partner directories and weighted scoring.
What to take away
- The CMA's consumer law guidance for online dating, published in 2023, shows how far promotional claims are policed, which is why supplier comparisons now start with evidence.
- Price alone rarely separates providers. Contract length and data ownership usually decide the outcome, along with how each platform handles tracking disputes.
- Directories from LinkedIn and Google give you a shortlist you can defend to finance and legal, rather than a list built on sales conversations.
- Score every supplier against the same weighted criteria, and keep the evidence file that supports your choice.
Why compliance now drives supplier comparison
Procurement for affiliate platforms used to run on feature checklists and commission rates. Consumer law duties now follow the content that partners publish, and the Competition and Markets Authority has said so in sector guidance.
The CMA's advice on complying with consumer law as an online dating service shows why testimonial and endorsement claims are policed, and the same disclosure duty applies to affiliate creative that promotes your product.
UK rules matter: the ASA CAP Code, CMA consumer law, and UK GDPR.
Criteria that actually separate suppliers
Build your scoring sheet before you take any demo. Weight each criterion, then score every supplier on the same scale.
Supplier scoring criteria and weights
Criterion
- Tracking accuracy
- Reconciliation and dispute handling
- Data ownership
- Export data without a fee
- Compliance controls
- Disclosure tools and audit logs
- Integration fit
- Commerce and analytics stack
- Commercial terms
- Notice, minimum term, overage
- Support model
- Named contact, response commitments
- Roadmap clarity
- Public release notes and process
What good looks like
- Tracking accuracy
- 20%
- Data ownership
- 15%
- Compliance controls
- 15%
- Integration fit
- 15%
- Commercial terms
- 15%
- Support model
- 10%
- Roadmap clarity
- 10%
Weight
- Tracking accuracy
- Data ownership
- Compliance controls
- Integration fit
- Commercial terms
- Support model
- Roadmap clarity
| Criterion | What good looks like | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking accuracy | Documented reconciliation process and dispute handling | 20% |
| Data ownership | You can export click and conversion data without a fee | 15% |
| Compliance controls | Disclosure tools and audit logs built in | 15% |
| Integration fit | Existing commerce and analytics stack supported | 15% |
| Commercial terms | Notice period, minimum term, overage rules | 15% |
| Support model | Named contact and response commitments | 10% |
| Roadmap clarity | Public release notes and change process | 10% |
For a fuller picture of how these criteria map onto platform categories, read our guide to affiliate marketing tools and supplier options.
Scoring pitfalls to avoid
Two habits ruin a comparison. The first is scoring after the demo, when the strongest presenter has already framed your view.
Avoiding scoring pitfalls
- Score from written answers, not demos
- Use demo only to test claims
- Cap any single criterion at 25%
- Revisit weights after scoring
CAP any single criterion at 25 per cent.
Where to find credible options
Start with directories you can cite. The LinkedIn Marketing Partners directory lists vetted technology providers by capability, which gives your shortlist an external source.
Google publishes its own performance guidance in the Google Ads best practices library, which is useful when you test how a supplier handles paid and affiliate overlap.
A shortlist of networks available to English brands includes Awin, CJ, Impact.com, Rakuten Advertising, Partnerize, Tradedoubler and ShareASale, plus Amazon Associates for retail programmes.
Running the comparison itself
Issue the same written brief to every supplier. Require written answers to these twelve questions:
- How do you track and reconcile conversions?
- What is your tracking dispute process?
- Who owns click and conversion data?
- Can we export data, and at what fee?
- What disclosure tools do you provide?
- Can you show a sample audit log?
- Which systems do you integrate with?
- What are the minimum term and notice period?
- What overage fees apply?
- What support response times do you commit to?
- Where are your release notes and change process?
- How do we exit and migrate data?
Score from written answers before the demo, and sign a decision note.
Convert every quote to a total cost over the contract term, including integration, migration and per-click or per-order fees.
Published list prices are rare. Typical models are a monthly platform fee, a commission override of about 20 to 30 per cent of partner commission, or both. UK retail commissions typically sit between 1 and 10 per cent of sale value.
If you need a deeper method for shortlisting and testing platforms, our walkthrough of affiliate marketing software selection in England sets out the sequence in detail.
Common questions
How many suppliers should we compare?
Three to five is workable. Fewer than three makes scoring meaningless, and more than five slows the process.
Should we include our existing supplier?
Yes. Score them against the same criteria. It surfaces drifted contract terms and gives evidence for renegotiation.
What evidence should we keep?
Keep the brief, written answers, scores, references and the final decision note. Consumer law duties mean you may need to show why a claim or partner arrangement was approved.
How long should the comparison take?
For example, a team running a mid-market programme might allow six to eight weeks, with two weeks for reference calls.
