Smile.io vs ReferralCandy
Zero of fourteen models named Smile.io first on the direct prompt; zero named ReferralCandy. Smile.io was named by ten of the fourteen models and ReferralCandy by fourteen and Smile.io carries 10 labels and ReferralCandy 39, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
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
Smile.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsReferralCandy
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Smile.io and ReferralCandy were named in the same answer seventy-one times, of the 125 answers naming Smile.io and the 178 naming ReferralCandy. In those answers ReferralCandy took the first choice two times and Smile.io thirty-one.
Every model, every framing
| 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 | | | |
Smile.io ReferralCandy first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Smile.io on the left and ReferralCandy on the right.The direct prompt
Neither was named
14 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.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
ReferralCandy12%#3 of 10Smile.io2%#– of 10Smile.io13%#3 of 15ReferralCandy6%#5 of 15Smile.io0%#– of 12ReferralCandy0%#12 of 12What the models said about Smile.io
No label in this category carried a quote.
What 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
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.