Skip to main content
FP·EDITORIAL · VOL. III · ISSUE 14 · UNITED STATES · MAY 2026 last sweep 2026-05-14 · 142 programs scored · 1 defunct

Methodology · United States

methodology v3.2 · audited apr '26

iso 27001 · CompaniesHouse #OC4451x

Vol. III · §3.2 · audited apr '26

Methodology.

§1 · Why this exists

Most "best affiliate program" lists rank by the headline commission rate. That number lies. A 70% commission on a $20 SaaS with a 7-day cookie and 90-day clawback pays a creator less than a 15% commission on a $400 product with a 6-month cookie and net-30 terms. The headline is the marketing brochure, not the math.

FintechPays grades by 12-month true-EPC — the realistic dollars-per-click we expect a competent creator to earn, after every leak. Six factors. Every value editor-set per program. Every program inspectable on its own review page.

§2 · The formula

true_epc_12mo = base_payout
              × cookie_decay
              × attribution_factor
              × reliability_factor
              × conversion_rate_estimate
              × (1 / payment_threshold_friction)
      

§3 · Rubric weights

Above the per-factor scoring, the composite weighting reflects how much each domain shapes the realistic EPC vs. the marketing claim:

FintechPays composite rubric — factor weights v3.2
FACTOR WEIGHT
commission economics30%
payout reliability25%
cookie + attribution15%
e-e-a-t / network access15%
audience fit10%
regulator coverage5%

§4 · Factor definitions

base_payout (USD)

Projected USD revenue per signed-up referral over 12 months. For recurring programs we project 12 months of typical subscription value × commission %. For one-time CPAs it is the CPA itself. Programs that hide the math behind tier ladders ("up to 70%") get the realistic tier, not the ceiling.

cookie_decay (0.10–0.95)

Programs with a 365-day cookie capture nearly every referral; 30-day cookies miss high-consideration buyers; 24-hour cookies miss most of them.

  • 365-day cookie → 0.95
  • 180-day → 0.85
  • 90-day → 0.75
  • 60-day → 0.65
  • 30-day → 0.55
  • 14-day → 0.40
  • 24–48h → 0.20
  • last-click only → 0.10

attribution_factor (0.25–1.00)

Does the program credit the affiliate honestly, or does its own retargeting overwrite the cookie? Full last-click + open attribution scores 1.00; clawback risk drops to 0.85; shared with own-funnel marketing drops to 0.50; known cookie-overwrite on retargeting hits 0.25.

reliability_factor (0.20–1.00)

Does the program actually pay? Defaults to 1.00, degraded by Trustpilot non-payment threads (−0.20 for 10+ verified complaints), Reddit first-hand reports, defunct-ancestor brand history (−0.40), Net-60+ terms, $500+ minimum thresholds. Floors at 0.20 — programs below 0.40 ship with caution flags; below 0.30 with do-not-promote editor flags; below 0.20 move to the defunct archive.

conversion_rate_estimate (0.01–0.20)

Niche-anchored. Prop trading and crypto-exchange land 0.05–0.15 (high-intent, money-on-the-line). BNPL hits 0.10–0.20 (impulse, low-friction). Robo-advisor sits 0.02–0.05 (low-intent, KYC friction). Editor adjusts per program based on landing-page quality and country-of-traffic match.

payment_threshold_friction (1.0–2.0)

High minimum payouts effectively delay cash and lower the true-EPC. $50–100 minimum → 1.0. $200–500 → 1.3. $500–1000 → 1.5. $1000+ → 1.7. Annual-cycle payouts → 2.0. Applied as × (1 / payment_threshold_friction).

§5 · Display grades are relative, not absolute

Within a (niche × market) cell, the program with the highest true_epc_12mo always scores 100. The rest scale linearly against that ceiling. A B+ in prop-trading × US means "good, but not the best in this market" — it does NOT mean "objectively medium." Cross-cell comparisons aren't apples-to-apples; every program's review page surfaces the absolute EPC alongside the relative grade.

§6 · Per-program audit trail

Every program's review page renders its full factor configuration as a JSON-style breakdown — the six values, the computed EPC, the editor notes documenting where each non-default factor came from. No factor adjustment ships without a documented editor_note. Audit trail is non-negotiable.

§7 · Re-verification cadence

Every program is re-verified on a 90-day cycle. If a payout reliability complaint surfaces, the reliability_factor drops in the next sweep. The audit-trail log on each review page records every change with date stamps. The next sweep is scheduled 2026-08-12.

§8 · v1 → v2 calibration

The v1 formula ships with editor-set factor ranges; the first 2 weeks of live affiliate-network payout data will calibrate v2. Expected v2 changes: (a) refine the conversion_rate_estimate per niche based on actual outbound-CTR vs program-side-conversion data; (b) re-baseline some reliability_factor defaults; (c) possibly simplify payment_threshold_friction to a flat −10% adjustment for thresholds above $500 if the noise drowns the effect.

† Authored by Maren Holst · fact-checked by Asha Devi · audited Apr '26 · methodology version v3.2

Editorial signatures and issue metadata

Edited by

Maren Holst

Senior Editor

Signed · M.HOLST

Fact-checked by

Asha Devi

Standards Desk (Fact-Checker)

Signed · A.DEVI

Issue meta

vol iii · iss 14

published 2026-03-12

last sweep 2026-05-14

methodology v3.2 · audited apr '26

Companies House #OC4451x