Referral and partner programs · October 2026 Edition
ReferralCandy vs Cello
Zero of fourteen models named ReferralCandy first on the direct prompt; three named Cello. ReferralCandy was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Cello by nine and ReferralCandy carries 39 labels and Cello 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in two categories this edition.
First-choice share6%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate31%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels3913A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, ReferralCandy reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Referral Rock was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. PartnerStack vs ReferralCandy · PartnerStack vs Cello · Referral Rock vs ReferralCandy
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen 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 fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ReferralCandyFirst choices, of fourteen modelsCello
Direct03
Paraphrase00
Comparative30
Budget-constrained301 against ReferralCandy
Scale-constrained00
Negative0011 against ReferralCandy
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where ReferralCandy and Cello 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 | | |||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
ReferralCandy Cello first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, ReferralCandy on the left and Cello on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where ReferralCandy and Cello stood in it.
Cello first, ReferralCandy not the choice
3 of 14 modelsReferralCandy was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5Cello alternatives: Friendbuy, PartnerStack, Referral Rock
DeepSeek V4 FlashCello, Referral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, GrowSurf, PartnerStack
GLM 4.7 FlashXCello alternatives: Ambassador, Extole, Referral Factory, Referral Rock
Neither was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.GPT-5.4 miniReferral Factory alternatives: Ambassador, PartnerStack, Referral Rock, impact.com
Gemini 3.5 FlashReferral Rock alternatives: GrowSurf, PartnerStack, Referral Factory, impact.com Advocate
Perplexity SonarReferral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, CustomerGauge, GrowSurf, Referral Factory
Grok 4.1 FastAmbassador alternatives: PartnerStack, Referral Rock
Mistral SmallReferral Rock alternatives: SaaSquatch
Llama 4 MaverickFriendbuy alternatives: Partnero, Referral Rock, SaaSquatch
Qwen 3.7 FlashPartnerStack alternatives: Cello.so, Partnero
Kimi K2Referral Rock alternatives: FirstPromoter, PartnerStack
MiniMax M2.5Referral Rock alternatives: Ambassador, Friendbuy, PartnerStack
GPT-6 LunaSaaSquatch alternatives: PartnerStack, Referral Rock
Muse Glimmer 30BAmbassador alternatives: Extole, PartnerStack, Partnerize, Referral Rock
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
ReferralCandy leads by six points.
ReferralCandy12%#3 of 10Cello6%#– of 10Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
ReferralCandy6%#5 of 15Cello6%#6 of 15Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
ReferralCandy0%#12 of 12Cello0%#– of 12What the models said about ReferralCandy
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“"Consumer-first tools like ReferralCandy and Viral Loops fail B2B programs because they track by user ID, not org, and have no CRM integration for sales-led funnels."” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
“be especially cautious. ReferralCandy records a reward when a transaction is confirmed and stops there—no subscription event model exists” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · hard negative
“ReferralCandy's published plans combine a monthly fee with a success fee, so model the total cost at your expected referral revenue—not just the starting price.” GPT-6 Luna · negative prompt · soft negative
“the best referral software is usually ReferralCandy if you run an ecommerce store, or GrowSurf if you want a lower-cost, more flexible referral/affiliate option” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
“If you have an online store (Shopify/WooCommerce): Start with ReferralCandy for simplicity” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“start with ReferralCandy or FirstPromoter for their low monthly costs and free trials” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Cello
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Best Overall: Cello ... For most mid-market B2B companies, Cello offers the best balance of features, pricing, and B2B-specific functionality” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice
“If you're a B2B SaaS company where referrals happen inside the product, Cello is the clear winner” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“Cello - Best for B2B SaaS” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
PartnerStack vs ReferralCandyPartnerStack vs CelloReferral Rock vs ReferralCandyReferral Rock vs CelloSmile.io vs ReferralCandySmile.io vs CelloGrowSurf vs ReferralCandyGrowSurf vs CelloReferralCandy vs FriendbuyReferralCandy vs AmbassadorCello vs FriendbuyCello vs AmbassadorAll twenty-eight 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.