Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 2% → 0%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 19 → 55 of 56
CJ Affiliate
62Judge labels
0First choices
24Negative labels
12 / 14Models named it
2Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
0% in Affiliate for mid-market buyers
Rank 16 of 94 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 17% of its 23 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of CJ Affiliate →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business56 of 57
0%13 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market16 of 94
0%23 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise11 of 48
0%23 labels
criticized challenger
In affiliate · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading
Standing by category
Every category where a model named CJ Affiliate for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.
| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affiliate and partner management | Partner and channel | 0% | 16 of 94 | 17% | 23 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Ecommerce marketing | Marketing | 0% | 87 of 115 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by HubSpot Marketing Hub at 38% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, CJ Affiliate held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Affiliate · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 19 → 15 of 90
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 9 → 11 of 46
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affiliate | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 19 → 16 of 94 |
| Ecommerce marketing | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 46 → 87 of 115 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated CJ Affiliate across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated CJ Affiliate across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
By framing
Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.
FramingLabels by classFirst choices
Direct2 labelsNone
Paraphrase2 labelsNone
Comparative21 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained5 labelsNone
Scale-constrained7 labelsNone
Negative25 labels3not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative62 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 4 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.
What the models said for it
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Best for: Enterprise brands, retail brands with large SKU catalogs... Strong API and reporting infrastructure, extensive network of vetted affiliates” Mistral Small · Affiliate · comparative prompt · first choice
“These have documented track records of paying affiliates reliably and are transparent about their terms.” MiniMax M2.5 · Affiliate · negative prompt · first choice
“Stick to well-known, vetted networks like CJ Affiliate, ShareASale, Rakuten Marketing, Awin” Mistral Small · Affiliate · negative prompt · first choice
“ShareASale or CJ Affiliate: These are networks where you can list your program instead of buying standalone software” Kimi K2 · Affiliate · budget prompt · alternative
And against it
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“you should avoid traditional "Affiliate Networks" (like Awin/ShareASale, CJ Affiliate, or Impact.com)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Affiliate · budget prompt · hard negative
“Rated "Bad" (1.7/5) on Trustpilot” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Affiliate · negative prompt · hard negative
“While platforms like CJ Affiliate, ClickBank, and ShareASale can be useful, some have been criticized for allowing low-quality or even fraudulent affiliates” Mistral Small · Ecommerce marketing · negative prompt · soft negative
“Traditional Networks (e.g., CJ Affiliate, Awin, ShareASale)... charge high "network overrides"... SaaS platforms are generally preferred” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Affiliate · scale prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CJ Affiliate, over the 62 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CJ Affiliate was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as CJ Affiliate, over the 62 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and CJ Affiliate was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.
What carried it into the answer
The sites and pages cited by the answers that named CJ Affiliate. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 56 of the 62 answers that named CJ Affiliate and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
postaffiliatepro.com35
tapfiliate.com19
ainfluencer.com16
digistore24.com16
modash.io16
hamstergarage.com14
shopify.com14
alidropship.com12
track360.io12
trustpilot.com12
No domain is on file for CJ Affiliate, so its own site is not marked.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
Where CJ Affiliate stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.ShowHide
Search and answers
Where CJ Affiliate stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimates- Searches for its name, Google
- 5,400 a month (“cj affiliate”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 214 a month
- Its own site
- No site of its own on file, so no site figures
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
0%
rank 16 of 94 in affiliate
Segment leader
49%
PartnerStack
- First choices
- 0 across its categories
- Named in
- 62 answers
- Its own site cited
- No site on file to match
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
Names read as CJ Affiliate
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as CJ Affiliate; a claim can dispute any of them.
CJ Affiliate (Commission Junction) 7CJ Affiliate (formerly Commission Junction) 2
Follow CJ Affiliate
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
Is this your product?
Claim this page
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when CJ Affiliate's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as CJ Affiliate, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for CJ Affiliate by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where CJ Affiliate is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name CJ Affiliate, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.