Better decisions
start here.

Official affiliate page discloses 50% for the first 12 months and 10–20% recurring beyond that for qualifying affiliates, a comparatively concrete payout disclosure. EPC, conversion rates, and realized earnings are not publicly stated in the reviewed official sources, so this is not scored as proven performance. Editorial assessment.

Editorial score: the official terms disclose 30% of eligible recurring monthly revenue, paid monthly, for up to 12 months. The cap, 60-day persistence condition, referral/payment thresholds, and exclusions lower the score; EPC is not publicly stated, so no performance value is assumed.

Editorial assessment: strong, unusually clear public commission disclosure (60% lifetime recurring while the referred subscriber remains active), with stated attribution and payout details. EPC and conversion rates are not publicly stated, so the score is materially reduced; commission terms are vendor-reported and dashboard details should be confirmed.

30% per referred sale and a 365-day cookie are disclosed, but EPC and commission cadence are not.

Official current materials disclose 40% for 12 months at Bronze, with 50%/60% tiers tied to 50+/100+ sales in 12 months, and explicitly call the payouts recurring. Editorial score credits the disclosed rates and duration but is reduced because upper tiers are conditional and EPC, conversion, and realized earnings data are not publicly stated.

17/25, conservative editorial score. The current official program page discloses up to 60% commission monthly for one year and the Bronze/Silver/Gold rates; EPC, conversion rates, and typical partner earnings are not stated, and the top rate is tier-dependent.

The official affiliate page discloses a 50% commission and custom links per product. EPC, attribution window, and conversion performance are not disclosed, limiting confidence in expected earnings.

Editorial score: Mangools publicly discloses up to 35% recurring commission, monthly PayPal payouts and the $150 threshold, but no EPC is publicly stated; the 24-month contractual cap/condition also tempers the lifetime headline.

vidIQ publicly states lifetime recurring tiers of 15%, 20% and 25% tied to referred-sale counts, a meaningful disclosed payout basis. EPC and conversion/payout outcomes are not public, and commissions are subject to net-receipt and tracking conditions; those unknowns are penalized.

AWeber publicly discloses 30%/40%/50% commission tiers and states payments recur for the lifetime of paid accounts. Editorial score is reduced because the highest tiers require substantial new-paid-account volume, and no EPC is publicly stated.

Applet Studio publicly states a 20% commission per purchase and 45-day cookie, which supports a meaningful but not exceptional commission score. EPC, conversion rates, and recurring payout terms are not disclosed, so the performance portion is unknown; scoring is conservative editorial judgment.

Officially discloses a 20% eligible-revenue commission for one year and up to $306 per customer, which supports a real payout proposition. EPC, conversion rate, and realized affiliate results are not publicly stated; the terms allow changes/reversals and exclude INR plans, so the editorial score remains limited.

Advertised 50% native recurring commission is attractive, but the $9 subscription is low-ticket and EPC, net calculation and retention are unknown.

Editorial: 11/25. The vendor discloses $69 per sale (35%) and affiliate payment details, but no EPC, conversion rate, traffic, refund/chargeback rate or reliable volume data; registration is required. Source: official affiliate-program page.

Editorial score: the official listing states 50% recurring monthly commission, but EPC, conversion data, average earnings, and detailed payout terms are not publicly stated. Skool's official instructions add active-member eligibility and a 14-day attribution/holding process, leaving substantial performance uncertainty.

The official affiliate page discloses up to 50%, a 50% program option, and lifetime recurring payouts while the referred subscription renews. EPC is not publicly stated, and the public page does not establish the exact selected account terms; those unknowns limit the score.

Official disclosure is relatively concrete: 30% lifetime recurring commission, capped at $500 per referral. EPC, conversion rate, and realized earnings are not publicly stated, so this does not justify a high performance score. The score is a conservative editorial assessment of disclosed terms only.

The official affiliate page states a 50% commission on digital-product purchases, a strong stated rate, and payment 30 days after sale. EPC, conversion rate and course-specific commission confirmation are not disclosed, so this is discounted.

The named course is listed at 50% share, but the low purchase price constrains the commission base and no EPC or renewal commission was verified.

The offer page advertises 50%, but the commission base, cadence and EPC are not disclosed; participation requires membership.

The official listing discloses “50% recurring commissions,” which is meaningful commission information. EPC is not publicly stated, and commission base, tracking, payout terms, and duration are not disclosed, so the advertised rate alone cannot establish expected earnings. Conservative editorial score.

The vendor advertises 25% of referred sales, but does not publish EPC, cookie duration, payout timing, or course-specific exclusions.

The vendor states a 50% commission on purchases through unique links, a comparatively clear rate; EPC, conversion and payout performance are not disclosed, limiting confidence.

Course page advertises 35% per sale, but general application terms state 30%; course-specific effective rate and EPC are unverified.

Editorial score: the community publicly states a 50% commission on referred purchases, but EPC, conversion rates, payout detail, and independently verified earnings are not disclosed; the absent EPC evidence limits the score.

Owner advertises 50% recurring, but the $3 monthly price makes the value per referral small; payout base and EPC are unverified.

The official YAMS post makes a strong, specific 50% recurring paid-membership commission disclosure and provides two illustrative module-sale commission amounts. EPC is not publicly stated, and the page gives no attributable conversion, payout-history, or other performance data; the score is therefore materially discounted.

Officially disclosed 30% monthly recurring commission for up to one year, 180-day cookie, and advertised up to $1,000+ per sale merit credit; EPC and any verified realized payout/conversion data are not stated in the reviewed source, so substantial uncertainty remains.

Editorial score: the official affiliate post clearly states a 50% share of $99/month recurring revenue, but EPC, conversion data, realized payouts, and attribution/payment conditions are not disclosed, materially limiting confidence in earnings.

The official about page visibly states 50% recurring commissions for referred members, a useful commission disclosure. No EPC, payout timing, attribution window, qualifying-plan details, or independent conversion data is disclosed, so this is scored conservatively.

The official community page discloses a 50% recurring commission. No EPC, conversion rate, volume, or payout history is public, so the score is heavily limited; no performance is inferred. Source: AI Creator Lab page.

Editorial: points for a plainly stated 30% recurring commission on the qualifying $15/month membership and an active-member duration qualifier. EPC, conversion, volume, and payout-history data are not disclosed, so the commission's likely earnings cannot be assessed.

The official Skool page discloses a headline 50% commission, which is useful evidence. The base to which 50% applies and discounted-sale treatment are not disclosed, and EPC is not publicly stated, so this is scored conservatively.

Official seller storefront visibly offers 50% per sale/half of every payment, but EPC, conversion rate, payout data, conditions, and whether payments recur are not disclosed. Low score reflects missing performance evidence, not a claim that commission is low.

Official pricing page publishes free and paid options, subscriber-based price examples, a 14-day trial, and free migration for paid plans. Price changes with subscriber count and the Pro discount is limited-time/first-year; funnel conversion data is not disclosed. Editorial assessment.

Editorial score: official pricing discloses plan starting prices, yearly billing at 1,000 contacts, and a 14-day no-credit-card trial, making the entry funnel reasonably legible. Contact-based price scaling and the lack of one universal price for all buyers limit certainty.

Official pages disclose a free entry tier, three paid monthly price points, annual prices, and the free-to-paid promotion path. The page also describes plan limits and annual-plan incentives. No independently validated funnel conversion or buyer-acquisition data is public; score reflects disclosure and accessible entry price, not assumed performance.

A paid course and direct checkout are visible, but advertised and promotional checkout prices differ and the browser encountered a CAPTCHA.

Editorial score: the official pricing page clearly presents three standard tiers, custom Enterprise pricing, monthly/annual billing, and a 14-day no-card trial, which makes entry and price discovery reasonably visible. Score is reduced because pricing varies by contact volume, billing period, locale/currency, and fees/taxes; no measured funnel conversion data is disclosed.

12/15, editorial. The official pricing page gives a free-forever entry plan and published Lite/Pro prices at 1,000 subscribers on yearly billing; the official partner article adds a 14-day trial and 20% off for the first 3 months. Paid pricing varies with subscriber tier, so those figures are not universal.

Official checkout shows a clear $297 one-time price or 3 payments of $99, immediate access, and the course inclusions. No independent conversion or funnel-performance evidence is disclosed.

Editorial score: a free account, no-card signup and free mini tools provide visible entry points, and plans are available; however, current checkout prices are country- and billing-dependent and not listed in the readable official pricing article, while plans auto-renew.

Official plans disclose a free tier and US list prices for paid tiers, plus renewal/cancellation basics; local price may vary and checkout is final. No public funnel conversion evidence or detailed sales-process metrics, so this is a conservative editorial assessment.

Official pages disclose a free option, paid plan pricing by subscriber count/billing term, and a 14-day trial for Lite and Plus; referral upgrades from Free are described. Editorial score is limited because funnel conversion and acquisition economics are not disclosed.

Official checkout displays $499 and the sales page connects directly to checkout and describes the course contents and a checkout add-on offer. VAT may apply and installment/billing details are not stated. Editorial assessment: the path is legible, but there is limited public detail about checkout options.

Official pricing is itemized across four plans, with monthly and annual-billing options and a 14-day no-card trial, making the buyer path relatively legible. Enterprise pricing is custom and trial-to-paid conversion performance is unknown. Editorial assessment.

The $9 monthly price, cancellation option and Join button are visible; private checkout and conversion performance were not tested.

Editorial: 9/15. The linked checkout discloses $197 pay-in-full or 2 × $74 and a $10 template upgrade, but the sales page also shows a past-dated $137.90/30%-off Spring offer and the couponed checkout does not expose a verifiable final total. Sources: official sales page and checkout.

Editorial score: $9/month, private-community status, immediate access, and the broad included subject areas are disclosed. The required ongoing paid membership and lack of a publicly described trial or fuller checkout sequence limit confidence about funnel friction and total cost.

Official pricing provides three visible paid tiers, per-user monthly price points, and a 14-day trial; the affiliate page also promotes a one-month-trial option. Pricing selections and promotional details could affect the checkout funnel, and no conversion data is public. Editorial assessment.

Official pricing gives three paid plan prices, notes a free trial, and says cycles are charged upfront; pricing and the course-builder page explain the basic product funnel. The upfront two-year commitment and undisclosed trial duration limit clarity. Editorial assessment.

A $97 USD course price is shown at checkout, with a separate $9 add-on and lifetime access described. The payment summary's $0-today/$97-future display is unexplained, which weakens price and funnel certainty.

Low entry price and a working cart support purchase, but catalog and live prices differ and no conversion data is available.

The $97/month new-member price and join button are public; the $35/month option is labelled for second-year renewal. Conversion performance is unknown.

The public listing shows $22/month, a direct JOIN call to action, and describes a private community with immediate access. No trial, checkout sequence, or other funnel details are disclosed. Conservative editorial score.

A $37 one-time price and directly accessible course checkout are clearly displayed; the low price also limits potential revenue per sale.

Official page shows a $197 price, access CTA and checkout form, plus a defined five-day paid course; no funnel conversion data verified.

Live checkout confirms a $65 discounted one-time price, an installment option, and an optional order bump; the program listing quotes a conflicting price.

Editorial score: the official plans page clearly lists $0/month Standard, $99/month Premium, and $715/year VIP, with an evident free-to-paid path; public funnel conversion or checkout performance is not disclosed.

Low public entry price and visible join button, but a Skool account and paid membership are required and the affiliate link is behind the membership gate.

Official pages disclose free community access, three paid plan prices, a join/plan-selection path, and eligible paid classroom modules/bundles. No conversion funnel metrics, checkout details, or conversion rates are disclosed; editorial assessment, not a performance claim.

Official pricing clearly shows a free entry point, qualified low-priced Starter, and higher Professional/Enterprise tiers with Talk to Sales. Price disclosure and multiple paths help evaluation, but tier complexity, limited Starter offer qualifications, and high upper-tier starting prices are friction (editorial assessment).

Editorial score: the official About page discloses free entry and Premium at $99/month and describes the tiers; the affiliate post identifies a member referral-link path. Checkout details and funnel conversion evidence are not public in the reviewed sources.

The official plans page clearly lists free Standard access and $9/month Premium and $17/month VIP tiers with feature differences. The public free entry point is clear, but upgrade/referral flow and conversion performance are not disclosed.

A clear $19/month price and ‘Cancel Anytime’ term are visible, alongside a description of included features. No trial, upgrade path, or detailed sales funnel is disclosed. Editorial assessment. Source: AI Creator Lab page.

Editorial: an official sales page describes the product and a 7-day-trial-to-paid path, but the official affiliate post and welcome post do not resolve the $15 versus $37 monthly-price inconsistency. Checkout terms need confirmation.

Official pages show $37 one-time access, code FIVE for $5, a linked checkout, approval steps, and optional upgrades at $57 and $147. Limited visibility into the post-checkout journey and no funnel performance data constrain the score.

Listing gives a clear low promotional price ($2.99, reduced from $3.74) and shows Get access/Add to cart; billing cadence and any upsell or full checkout funnel are not disclosed. Editorial assessment.

Official pricing FAQ clearly discloses a 30-day refund period and processing expectation; Kit help says affiliate commissions are generated 31 days after the transaction to account for the refund period. No separate affiliate clawback details were verified. Editorial assessment.

Editorial score: the official pricing/guarantee page advertises a full refund if dissatisfied after 30 days, but uses an asterisk and the specific qualifications were not disclosed in the readable page content reviewed. Credit is limited accordingly. Credit is capped because key conditions are not disclosed.

Official terms clearly disclose that subscription plans are not refundable, and the pricing FAQ describes cancellation and reversion to Free at the next billing date. This clarity earns points, while the no-refund term is a buyer friction and the terms do not provide evidence about dispute outcomes. Points are limited because the disclosed paid purchase or subscription is non-refundable.

A 30-day money-back guarantee is stated; refunded sales before payout are not compensated.

Official help content clearly discloses that charges already made are not refunded even after immediate cancellation, while future charges stop on cancellation and a no-card 14-day trial is offered. Editorial score is limited because the disclosed paid-plan refund position is strict; no separate post-purchase refund window is stated.

conservative editorial score. No refund window, guarantee, or refund terms were disclosed in the official pricing or accessible partner pages reviewed; absence of public detail is not assumed favorable.

A no-questions-asked Happiness Guarantee is stated, but the refund period and detailed terms are not disclosed. Credit is capped because key conditions are not disclosed.

Editorial score: the official pricing FAQ discloses a 48-hour full-refund statement and terms disclose consumer/renewal provisions, but the different statements have varying scope and no single clearly reconciled universal policy is evident.

Official terms and billing help provide concrete refund and cancellation disclosures, including generally non-refundable unused periods and exceptions. The restrictions weigh against buyer-favorable terms; score is an editorial judgment, not a refund-rate claim. Points are limited because the disclosed paid purchase or subscription is non-refundable.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The sales page clearly discloses that the digital class is non-refundable, which reduces ambiguity but is unfavorable buyer protection. Score is conservative editorial judgment; no buyer refund window is offered.

An official policy states a narrow latest-charge refund case, no prorated refunds after more than one day of paid use, and no annual-plan refunds. The written policy is concrete but restrictive, especially for annual buyers. Editorial assessment. Points are limited because the disclosed paid purchase or subscription is non-refundable.

No offer-specific guarantee was found; Skool says refunds are at the creator’s discretion and cancellation does not automatically refund.

A clearly stated 30-day, 100% refund is disclosed, but eligibility requires evidence of taking the course, implementing all three modules’ steps and still not getting results. Source: official sales page.

Editorial score: the official page plainly discloses no refunds and final sales, so the core term is visible; the term is unfavorable to buyers and no further exception or dispute details are presented on the listing.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

No refund window, guarantee, or other refund terms are disclosed on the official pricing or affiliate pages reviewed; unknown terms receive no points.

Course-specific refund terms are not disclosed. The separate add-on's money-back statement cannot be attributed to the course.

Direct-purchase refunds are restricted by time and course access, and the affiliate pack contradicts the website terms.

No offer-specific refund guarantee or period was found; Skool directs members to the group admin for refund requests.

The listing clearly states “All sales are final,” making the disclosed refund position easy to identify. It does not describe exceptions or other terms; the score credits disclosure, not favorability. Editorial assessment. Points are limited because the disclosed paid purchase or subscription is non-refundable.

The course-specific checkout terms and sales page conflict on the deadline and proof requirement; the general site terms differ as well.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The course is explicitly non-refundable, although the vendor says it will consider individual special circumstances.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

No community-specific refund promise found; refunds are handled by group admins and commissions may be reversed.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The sales page does not state refund terms; cancellation is not the same as a refund. Skool’s 14-day pending commission period is not a buyer refund policy. Very limited points reflect visible cancellation language only. Sources: AI Creator Lab page; Skool referral help.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

The customer refund policy was not disclosed in the reviewed official sources, so no points are awarded for it.

Official pages describe product functionality, intended creator use cases, plan comparison, and trial/signup options. Independent sales evidence, conversion rates, and verifiable outcome data are not disclosed in the sources reviewed; vendor testimonials and audience counts are not treated as proof of sales quality. Editorial assessment.

Editorial assessment: official sales/pricing material identifies product capabilities, tier differences, and a trial-to-paid route. There is no public conversion, close-rate, or independently validated sales-quality evidence in the sources reviewed, and vendor performance claims are not treated as proof.

Official product and pricing pages describe the platform's functions, tier prices, limits, and signup path. Editorially, the public material provides a usable product explanation, but there is no independently verified sales-conversion evidence or substantiated performance comparison in the checked sources.

The sales page describes the curriculum and buyer benefits, but makes prominent income-oriented claims and shows inconsistent pricing.

Editorial score based on the official sales/pricing page describing email marketing, automation, forms, landing pages and tier-specific features, plus the trial path. Publicly accessible material supports product/plan clarity, but independent conversion, customer outcome, and sales-page performance evidence is not established here.

11/20, editorial. Official product and pricing pages describe specific newsletter, website, podcast, community, and monetization features plus plan limits and a free-to-paid funnel. The reviewed evidence is primarily vendor-authored and does not independently establish conversion or customer outcomes.

The page describes a self-paced course, audience, format, and resources. Outcome and effectiveness claims are vendor marketing and are not independently verified; independent reviews or results are not established by the opened official pages.

Editorial score: official pages describe a coherent SEO suite and its features and plan limits, but this is vendor-provided product information; no independent conversion, customer-outcome, or sales-quality metrics were verified.

The official plans page gives a clear product use case and lists tool features and plan levels. This is an editorial assessment of public presentation only; no independent product evaluation or funnel conversion evidence is established here.

Official product and pricing pages describe email marketing, landing pages, automation, ecommerce, and support, giving buyers product detail. Editorial score remains cautious: this review did not verify independent conversion results, sales outcomes, or comparative performance.

The official sales page gives a specific audience, curriculum, included resources, and 2026 update information, supporting basic product clarity. Outcome-oriented claims are not independently validated, and no independently verified conversion or satisfaction evidence was established here. Editorial judgment.

Official sales materials describe product functions, plan limits, and trial details. No independently verifiable conversion, checkout completion, or sales-quality metrics are publicly disclosed; vendor testimonials and promotional assertions do not establish conversion performance. Editorial assessment.

The public page identifies its audience, curriculum themes, weekly mentorship and price, but outcomes and delivery depth were not independently verified.

Editorial: 11/20. The page publicly describes three modules, 30 lessons, 10+ hours and a detailed topic list, but testimonials and outcome claims are seller-published and not independently verified; portions of the sales copy are dated. Source: official sales page.

Editorial score: the listing names multiple learning areas and the intended audience, but detailed curriculum samples, outcome substantiation, and independent validation are not publicly provided. The page's income-related claims are not independently verified.

The official product and pricing pages describe the LinkedIn and email outreach use case, features, plan comparisons, and trial CTA. This is an editorial assessment of the visible sales presentation; independent conversion or sales-quality data is not public.

Official product and course pages describe course-builder functions, content types, and paid plan features, which makes the offer reasonably understandable. Public evidence does not establish independent sales conversion or buyer outcomes; testimonial and promotional claims are not treated as verified performance evidence. Editorial assessment.

The official page identifies specific training components and resources, but the page's effectiveness and passive-income claims are seller marketing, not independently verified outcomes; external quality evidence was not established.

The page explains its audience, curriculum, format and license and reaches a priced cart; independent efficacy and conversion were not verified.

The sales page clearly identifies the audience, coaching, resources and community benefits, but many affiliate terms are absent.

The listing describes prompts, tools, training topics, resources, and the paid community, but does not provide a detailed public curriculum preview or substantiation for its broad promotional claims. Score reflects limited visible information, not an assessment of member outcomes.

The sales page identifies the intended audience, curriculum, delivery format, bonuses, and price, but its refund inconsistency reduces confidence.

The sales page gives a specific curriculum and intended buyer, but testimonials and promised outcomes are vendor claims rather than independently verified results.

A detailed course page and working checkout explain the audience and materials, but stale promotional references and inconsistent pricing reduce confidence.

Editorial score: official pages describe the target audience, community benefits, and plan tiers, but do not provide independently verifiable evidence about conversion performance or buyer outcomes.

The offer clearly describes a promotion-oriented community, but public detail on deliverables and terms is limited.

The official About page identifies the intended audience and describes AI apps, Lovable tools, marketing/growth systems, and monetization. The reviewed public page does not establish sales outcomes, guarantees, testimonials, or conversion evidence; this is a conservative editorial assessment of public sales information only.

Official product and pricing pages describe the platform and identify its component hubs and plan tiers, giving a legible product/purchase proposition. No independently verifiable conversion, sales, or customer outcome evidence was established in the cited material; editorial score remains restrained.

Editorial assessment: the official About page gives a concrete description of the community's stated courses, resources, and events, but this is vendor-authored presentation and does not independently establish quality, outcomes, or conversion performance.

The official about page describes a specific audience and concrete content/resources, and the plans page lists tier features. This is a modest editorial score for publicly described offer substance only; there is no verified sales-conversion evidence or independently substantiated outcomes.

The official page outlines a target audience, topics, and member features, but does not provide a sample curriculum, independently verifiable outcomes, or sales/conversion evidence. Editorial assessment based only on disclosed material. Source: AI Creator Lab page.

Editorial: the official landing page describes app, listening tools, music, and community access and includes wellness limitations; however, the publicly stated pricing is inconsistent and no independent conversion or customer-outcome evidence is provided.

The official listing gives a concrete description of 11+ classrooms and resource topics, but the cited material does not establish content quality, independent reviews, outcomes, or conversion performance. Editorial assessment based only on the listing.

Official listing explains the course topics and intended audience, but provides no independently verifiable curriculum depth, outcomes, demonstrations beyond its sales copy, or third-party validation. Editorial assessment.

Kit's official pages make audience/customer-scale claims (550,000+ on pricing/homepage and 600,000+ on affiliate page), but those are vendor-published and inconsistent, and no independent validation, program tenure, or affiliate performance history was verified. Editorial assessment; limited points for publicly available vendor information only.

Editorial assessment: ActiveCampaign's homepage itself displays a claim of 14,500+ G2 reviews and a 4.4 average rating. This is a vendor-displayed third-party-review claim, not independently verified here; no affiliate program earnings or conversion track record is public in the sources reviewed.

The official affiliate page reports more than $5,000,000 in commissions paid to date, and the homepage reports powering 500,000+ entrepreneurs. These are vendor-published claims without independent validation or detailed period/cohort evidence, so they provide limited rather than conclusive track-record support.

The vendor operates a named course and affiliate program, but independent affiliate performance and conversion data were not verified.

The current official program page, August 2026 update and functioning PartnerStack application provide evidence of an active, maintained program. Editorial score is conservative because public independent evidence of affiliate payout history, cohort retention, or sales performance was not verified.

7/15, editorial. beehiiv's official page reports $2,000,000+ paid to partners, and its official 2026 pricing announcement says the product launched previously. These are first-party claims; no independently audited payout breakdown, program-age history, or partner earnings distribution was verified.

Sales history, affiliate performance, refund rates, and independent track-record evidence are not disclosed in the official pages reviewed.

Editorial score: Mangools states it has operated for several years, and the current product and affiliate pages are accessible. Public affiliate-history, payout, and independent retention evidence was not verified.

An official affiliate program, commission help article and agreement revised an earlier date provide evidence the program is documented and established, but no public affiliate earnings history, verified sales totals or EPC is available in these sources. Conservative editorial score.

The Advocate page says AWeber has been trusted since before the turn of the millennium and displays an advocate for several years; these are vendor-published claims, not independent validation. Editorial score reflects that limited evidence.

The official site presents the course as updated for 2026 and includes seller-published testimonial material, but no independent longitudinal track record or verifiable outcome dataset was found. Score is conservative editorial judgment; testimonial material is not treated as verified performance evidence.

The official site publishes claims of 15K+ customers, 5B+ posts, and a 4.5 G2 ease-of-use rating, which are signals that a product is established, but the figures are vendor-presented and were not independently verified here. No public affiliate earnings history was found. Editorial assessment.

Public evidence of performance is limited; no verified affiliate earnings, conversion, retention or refund-rate data were found.

Editorial: 5/15. The seller describes her own eBook publishing history and includes student anecdotes, but the reviewed pages provide no independently audited course history, cohort outcomes or verified performance metrics. Source: official sales page.

Editorial score: the official listing displays 1.4k members and 27 reviews at check time, but these are platform-displayed figures, not independently audited sales, retention, or affiliate-performance history.

Waalaxy’s affiliate page asserts 200,000+ users, 8K+ active ambassadors, €1M revenue given, and €223 average commission, and references ratings. These are vendor-published claims rather than independently validated performance evidence, so only limited credit is awarded.

The official site presents customer testimonials and claims 3,000+ migrations, but these are vendor-published claims and are not independently corroborated by the sources reviewed. No verified affiliate program performance history was found. Editorial assessment.

The vendor's affiliate page documents an active program and the course has an official checkout, but independent sales, retention, refund or affiliate-performance history is not disclosed.

The vendor describes its training business and offers a catalog, but independent course outcomes and affiliate performance were not verified.

The live page shows an operating community, but verified affiliate sales, EPC and payout history were not found.

The official page is currently live and displays reviews, but public review/member figures can vary by page view and do not independently verify sales, retention, or affiliate performance. No independently substantiated track-record metrics were found in the opened official listing. Conservative editorial score.

The vendor identifies the instructor and course, but independently verified course or affiliate performance data were not found.

Vendor pages describe the program and affiliate mechanism, but no independently verified sales, student outcomes, or affiliate performance history was found.

The vendor describes its experience, but no independently verified course or affiliate performance data were established.

Editorial score: the official About page displays 6.3k members, 5.0 from 23 reviews, and member testimonials; these are platform-hosted disclosures, not independent verification of sales or outcomes.

Limited independently verifiable operating history and no verified conversion or affiliate-performance data.

The official community is publicly available, but no reliable affiliate sales/payout history, retention data, or program tenure is stated in the reviewed sources. No unverified member or sales metric is used to infer performance.

The official affiliate page confirms an operating program and names Impact as its platform, but the reviewed sources provide no independently verified payout history, program longevity data, or affiliate performance metrics; minimal credit is editorial.

Editorial score: the community and affiliate announcement are publicly accessible, but the reviewed official sources disclose no affiliate payout history, program tenure, or independently verifiable performance record.

The official page displays 812 members and one 5.0 review, but those platform indicators do not verify sales, affiliate results, or longevity. Minimal points reflect only the visible listing, not inferred performance.

The official page establishes an existing community and showed 16 members when checked; the owner profile says Mike Alba built AI Creator Lab. No public sales history, longevity evidence, or independent track-record metrics were established. Sources: AI Creator Lab page; Mike Alba profile.

Editorial: the official community and product pages establish a publicly accessible operating offer, but no verified affiliate payment history, retention, sales history, or independent track-record evidence was found.

The official Skool page displayed 176 members when checked, but no tenure, sales history, retention, or independently verified results are disclosed. Member count alone is weak, time-sensitive evidence; score is conservative.

The listing claims 200+ students enrolled, but this is seller-provided and there is no public independent sales history, review base, or affiliate performance record in the inspected sources. Editorial assessment.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

The official site claims a substantial number of publishers and readers; those are vendor-reported public signals, not independently audited demand or sales. The score is conservative.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.

No source-backed public demand signal was established in the reviewed materials. An identifiable audience alone does not establish market demand.