Performance Partners review

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 25% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Strong 7 · Adequate 1 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 5 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Attributable programs at a stated scale: named brands, described program size, publisher counts, revenue managed. Treat headline revenue figures as vendor-stated unless a client is named. Where a firm names the networks its programs run on, that is checkable detail and should be credited.

Scores high — Named clients with described program work score 4-5.

Scores low — Anonymised case studies score 2-3.

What we found — Six named clients each with a dedicated case study page: Fiera Cosmetics, LeadPages, Cheech and Chong, Snow Cosmetics, Gains in Bulk, Fluff.co. Two carry attributed client contacts by name and title (Ryan Truax, VP of Marketing, LeadPages; Haley White at Snow Cosmetics). Program size is described, not just asserted: 46 media buyers activated for Fiera with 8 in paid social; 50+ media buyers onboarded in 60 days and 700+ pre-launch applicants for Snow; $136,941.16 total revenue and 2.21x ROAS over 7.5 months for LeadPages. Three case studies name the platform the program ran on (Everflow for Fiera, Impact for Fluff.co, Squaredance for Snow), which is checkable detail. Held at Strong rather than Excellent because every metric is self-published and unverifiable, the ROI figures are stated against agency fees rather than program economics (3,547% for Cheech and Chong, 625% for Fluff.co, 154% for LeadPages), and three of the six case studies give no platform and no publisher specifics at all. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Six named clients each have a dedicated case study page: Fiera Cosmetics, LeadPages, Cheech and Chong, Snow Cosmetics, Gains in Bulk and Fluff.co. No anonymised case studies and no placeholder text.” performancepartners.agency ↗

On the record — “The Snow Cosmetics program ran on Squaredance with Everflow as recruitment technology; stated results are 700+ pre-launch applicants, 50+ media buyers onboarded in 60 days, 30% activation within 90 days.” performancepartners.agency ↗

ROAS — return on ad spend: revenue per dollar of advertising. Platform-reported ROAS overstates; independently measured ROAS is the honest version.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Weak — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 6 · Adequate 5 · Weak 1. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 13 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: The dimension that separates a managed channel from a paid-for coupon leak. Look for a stated position on incrementality — how the firm distinguishes affiliate-driven demand from demand that would have converted anyway — and on policing: coupon and loyalty extension monitoring, trademark bidding enforcement, cookie-stuffing and attribution-hijack detection, publisher vetting. Policing only, with no incrementality position, scores 3.

Scores high — A named policy on BOTH scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on both scores 1-2 and should be named plainly: an unpoliced program reliably pays commission on traffic the brand already owned.

What we found — No stated incrementality position anywhere I could read: not on the homepage, not on /about, not in any of the six case studies, and not in the 21 blog titles. The nearest thing is a homepage FAQ policy of working with '1-2 quality coupon sites, maximum' and focusing them on new-customer conversions rather than discounting traffic the brand already had - a real mix policy on the biggest leak vector, but a recruitment rule, not a measurement method. The Gains in Bulk case study asserts 'incremental revenue' added 'without disrupting existing paid media performance' as a claim with no test behind it. On policing, one blog post ('How Do I Prevent Affiliate Fraud And Protect My Brand') correctly identifies cookie stuffing, trademark bidding, coupon-extension override and typosquatting, and names tools such as BrandVerity - but it is written as advice the client should implement, prescribing 'client responsibility' for coupon monitoring, and nowhere does the firm commit to performing any of it as part of the engagement. Publishing an explainer about a risk is not the same as policing it. The rubric's 3 band requires actual policing with no incrementality position; there is no service-level policing commitment here, so this sits at 2. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “The firm's only fraud content is a blog post that identifies cookie stuffing, trademark bidding, coupon-extension override and typosquatting and names tools such as BrandVerity, but prescribes them as measures the client should implement, explicitly describing coupon site monitoring as a client responsibility. It contains no mention of incrementality.” performancepartners.agency ↗

On the record — “The homepage FAQ states a coupon policy of working selectively with 1-2 quality coupon sites maximum, aimed at new-customer conversions rather than discounting existing traffic, and states a typical client profile of $10M+ annual revenue with 2%+ conversion rates.” performancepartners.agency ↗

attribution — working out which marketing touch actually caused a sale. Good practice names its model and its blind spots; bad practice quotes each ad platform’s self-graded numbers, which overlap and overclaim.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Stronger here: Hamster Garage scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 11 · Adequate 2. The typical agency here scores Strong, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who the firm can actually bring: named publisher types and any evidenced relationships beyond the obvious coupon and cashback tier — content publishers, review sites, newsletters, comparison shopping, B2B referral partners.

Scores high — Evidence of recruiting beyond coupon/loyalty scores 4-5.

Scores low — A roster that is entirely coupon and cashback scores 2-3; that is the easiest tier to recruit and the least incremental, and the verdict should say so.

What we found — The clearest strength. Recruitment reaches well past the coupon and cashback tier and the evidence is specific rather than a services menu. The LeadPages case study names individual partners brought into the program - SaaS Genius, Rakuten Rewards, Capital One, Natural Intelligence, Looka and JoinSecret - spanning SaaS marketplaces, comparison and review partners and cashback. Fluff.co lists premium content publishers, gift guide sites, SEO review blogs, deal sites and niche publishers. Fiera and Snow were built on affiliate media buyers running paid social, native, email and video on a CPA basis, which is a genuinely harder tier to recruit than coupon. A published methodology backs it: outbound treated as a sales function with pipeline stages, mining competitor programs, discovery tools (Affistash, BuzzSumo), targeted hit lists and 7-12 touchpoints before commitment. The firm also states a ceiling on coupon sites rather than leaning on them. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “The LeadPages case study carries an attributed quote from Ryan Truax, VP of Marketing, and names individual partners recruited into the program: SaaS Genius, Rakuten Rewards, Capital One, Natural Intelligence, Looka and JoinSecret. Stated results over 7.5 months: 2.21x ROAS, $136,941.16 revenue, ~95% increase in monthly signups.” performancepartners.agency ↗

On the record — “The Fiera Cosmetics program ran on Everflow with event-level tracking, Sub ID reporting and Facebook CAPI integration, and activated 46 affiliate media buyers, 8 of them in paid social.” performancepartners.agency ↗

B2B — business-to-business: selling to companies rather than consumers — longer deals, more decision-makers.

SaaS — software as a service: subscription software; as a client type it brings recurring revenue and metrics like churn and lifetime value.

pipeline — the dollar value of open, qualified deals sales is working. “Pipeline created” ties marketing to money, where lead counts don’t.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 2 · Strong 7 · Adequate 5. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Which networks and platforms the firm operates on (Impact, PartnerStack, CJ, Awin, Rakuten, ShareASale, Everflow and the rest), whether it can migrate a program between them, and whether it works in the client's own account. Note whether the client owns the network account, since that determines whether the program is portable.

Scores high — Named multi-network capability plus migration experience scores 4-5.

Scores low — A single network with no migration path scores 2-3.

What we found — Four platforms named, and unusually, two of them are tied to specific named programs rather than listed as a capability: Everflow (Fiera Cosmetics, with event-level tracking, Sub ID reporting and Facebook CAPI integration described), Impact (Fluff.co, program set up August 2024), Squaredance (Snow Cosmetics), plus an Awin Certified Agency Account Manager badge and Impact and Everflow partner badges on /about. Founder Frederic Jean-Bart came out of Squaredance, which is consistent with the platform depth shown. Held below the top band because the rubric requires migration experience for 4-5 and no case study, page or blog post describes moving a program between networks, and because nothing on the site states whether the client owns the network account or the firm does. Note that this dimension and 'Fee model and program ownership' share the same unanswered question: portability at exit. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The Fiera Cosmetics program ran on Everflow with event-level tracking, Sub ID reporting and Facebook CAPI integration, and activated 46 affiliate media buyers, 8 of them in paid social.” performancepartners.agency ↗

On the record — “Six named clients each have a dedicated case study page: Fiera Cosmetics, LeadPages, Cheech and Chong, Snow Cosmetics, Gains in Bulk and Fluff.co. No anonymised case studies and no placeholder text.” performancepartners.agency ↗

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 1 · Adequate 3 · Weak 10. The typical agency here scores Weak, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the firm is paid — flat retainer, percentage of affiliate revenue, hybrid — and who owns the program, the publisher relationships and the account at exit. A percentage-of-revenue model is not a defect but carries an obvious incentive to grow attributed revenue whether or not it is incremental, and where a firm charges that way AND is silent on incrementality, the combination should be named.

Scores high — A published fee model plus explicit client ownership scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence on ownership scores 2.

What we found — The fee model is published in full with numbers, which is rare in this category: three tiers - affiliate list at $1,000 one-time, recruitment-only at $3,000/month plus 3% commission, full management at $5,000/month plus 5% commission - alongside 'no long-term contracts, month-to-month with 30-day notice' and a recommended $2,000-$5,000/month partnership budget. Against that, ownership is completely silent. Nothing states who holds the network account, who owns the publisher relationships, or what a client leaves with at exit; the Gains in Bulk case study in fact describes the firm handling all affiliate communications with the client's team 'uninvolved operationally', which raises the exit question rather than answering it. The rubric's own instruction applies squarely here: the firm charges a percentage of affiliate revenue (3% and 5%) while stating no position on incrementality, so its fee grows with attributed revenue whether or not that revenue is incremental. That combination should be named to a buyer. Adequate rather than the rubric's floor of 2 because the published pricing is genuine and checkable. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Full fee schedule is published: $1,000 one-time for an affiliate list, $3,000/month plus 3% commission for recruitment-only, $5,000/month plus 5% commission for full management, month-to-month with 30-day notice.” performancepartners.agency ↗

retainer — a fixed monthly fee regardless of hours or output — predictable, but worth tying to a defined scope.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 7 · Weak 3. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: What the client receives and how often: partner-level reporting, incrementality reads, payout reconciliation, a stated review cadence.

Scores high — Defined reporting with a named cadence scores 4-5.

Scores low — Undefined scores 2.

What we found — A named cadence appears, but only retrospectively inside case studies rather than as a stated deliverable a buyer can hold the firm to. Fluff.co: 'During the most intense growth periods, we had daily check-ins, with weekly Slack updates and monthly reporting.' Gains in Bulk: daily communication via Slack plus regular check-ins and 'real-time updates'. Fiera describes Sub ID transparency and event-level tracking. What is absent is any standard reporting spec: no partner-level reporting definition, no payout reconciliation process, no incrementality read, and no cadence promised on the pricing or FAQ surfaces where a buyer would look for it. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “The Fluff.co program was set up on Impact in August 2024 and states a reporting cadence: daily check-ins during intense growth periods, weekly Slack updates, monthly reporting.” performancepartners.agency ↗

On the record — “The Fiera Cosmetics program ran on Everflow with event-level tracking, Sub ID reporting and Facebook CAPI integration, and activated 46 affiliate media buyers, 8 of them in paid social.” performancepartners.agency ↗

deliverability — deliverability: whether cold email actually lands in the inbox rather than spam. The tell is infrastructure talk — warmed sending domains kept separate from your main domain — because a burned domain outlasts the engagement.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 5% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 14 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 4 · Adequate 8 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 4 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Independent, verified reviews or industry recognition that can be read first-hand.

Scores low — A substantial verified base scores 4-5; a handful scores 2-3; none located scores 2.

What we found — A small independent base exists and I read it first-hand. Trustpilot shows a 4.2 TrustScore across 6 reviews, all of them 5-star (Trustpilot weights its score by recency and volume, which is why the score sits below 5 with a clean distribution; the page also notes the firm has no recent history of soliciting reviews). Content is consistent with the site's positioning - one reviewer credits the team with understanding 'where scale and incremental traffic come from in affiliate marketing', others describe partner-like engagement over vendor-like. Six reviews is a handful, not a substantial base. No Clutch or G2 profile was located despite searching; a third-party account of the firm's founding appears on Martech Record and on Squaredance's own site, but a network writing up an agency it works with is an interested source, not an independent review.

On the record — “Trustpilot shows a 4.2 TrustScore across 6 reviews, all 5-star, and notes the firm has no recent history of asking for reviews.” trustpilot.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.