Referral and partner programs · September 2026 Edition
PartnerStack vs Viral Loops
One of twelve models named PartnerStack first on the direct prompt; zero named Viral Loops. PartnerStack was named by eleven of the twelve models and Viral Loops by ten and PartnerStack carries 21 labels and Viral Loops 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in six categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share19%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate10%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels2120A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, PartnerStack reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Referral Rock was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. PartnerStack vs Referral Rock · PartnerStack vs ReferralCandy · PartnerStack vs Ambassador
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the referral and partner programs page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
PartnerStackFirst choices, of twelve modelsViral Loops
Direct101 against Viral Loops
Paraphrase80
Comparative021 against PartnerStack
Budget-constrained021 against PartnerStack
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against Viral Loops
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.
Every model, every framing
The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where PartnerStack and Viral Loops stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | |||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | ||
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | |||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | ||||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | |||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | |
PartnerStack Viral Loops first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, PartnerStack on the left and Viral Loops on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where PartnerStack and Viral Loops stood in it.
PartnerStack first, Viral Loops not the choice
1 of 12 modelsViral Loops was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GLM 4.7 FlashXAmbassador, PartnerStack alternatives: GrowSurf, Referral Rock, impact.com
Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Gemini 3.5 FlashReferral Rock alternatives: GrowSurf, PartnerStack, impact.com Advocate
Neither was named
10 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Cello alternatives: Friendbuy, Influitive, Partnero, Referral Rock
GPT-5.4 miniReferral Rock alternatives: Friendbuy, Referral Factory
Perplexity SonarAmbassador alternatives: CustomerGauge, GrowSurf, Referral Rock
Grok 4.1 FastReferral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, GrowSurf, Influitive
Mistral SmallReferral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, Cello, GrowSurf
DeepSeek V4 FlashReferral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, GrowSurf
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashCello alternatives: Friendbuy, GrowSurf, Referral Rock
Kimi K2Referral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, GrowSurf, Influitive
MiniMax M2.5Referral Rock alternatives: Mention Me, impact.com
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
PartnerStack leads by fifteen points.
PartnerStack15%#2 of 12Viral Loops0%#10 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
PartnerStack leads by fifteen points.
PartnerStack19%#1 of 11Viral Loops4%#5 of 11Enterprise
PartnerStack leads by fourteen points.
PartnerStack14%#2 of 13Viral Loops0%#– of 13What the models said about PartnerStack
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about Viral Loops
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“Multiple reports of billing issues ... 1-star reviews highlight "deceptive practices" and "waste of money."[” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“aimed at B2C viral loops and pre-launch waitlists, not ongoing B2B referral operations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · hard negative
“*Caution for cash reward programs* — No automated fraud detection” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Start with Viral Loops - it offers the best combination of affordability ($35/month), comprehensive features, and a solid free trial period.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“ReferralCandy or Viral Loops offer the best balance of features and ease of use” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“Viral Loops (≈$35/month) is the best all-around value” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
PartnerStack vs Referral RockPartnerStack vs ReferralCandyPartnerStack vs AmbassadorPartnerStack vs FirstPromoterPartnerStack vs Referral FactoryReferral Rock vs Viral LoopsReferralCandy vs Viral LoopsAmbassador vs Viral LoopsViral Loops vs FirstPromoterViral Loops vs Referral FactoryAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full referrals standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.