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 12 labels and ReferralCandy 46, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in four 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 November 2026 Edition, Smile.io and ReferralCandy were named in the same answer eighty-nine times, of the 118 answers naming Smile.io and the 204 naming ReferralCandy. In those answers ReferralCandy took the first choice six times and Smile.io forty-five.
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 4.20 | | | | | ||
| 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
ReferralCandy5%#4 of 9Smile.io3%#– of 9Smile.io12%#4 of 13ReferralCandy6%#6 of 13Smile.io0%#– of 14ReferralCandy0%#14 of 14What the models said about Smile.io
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Noted for billing complaints (charges after cancellation) and poor customer service.” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Best Overall (Free Plan): Smile.io ... widely considered the best option for small businesses because it offers a genuine free plan” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“Best Overall Free Option for E-Commerce: Smile.io ... widely considered the best starting point for small e-commerce businesses” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
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.
“Why to Avoid: If you sell high-ticket items (e.g., $1,000+ courses or furniture), paying a % commission can be incredibly expensive” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“Avoid ReferralCandy (despite its popularity) if your margins are very thin” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative
“Criticized for being consumer-first and unsuitable for B2B programs” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“ReferralCandy is the "plug-and-play" standard for online stores... Extremely low maintenance; seamless dashboard for tracking payouts” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Shopify store and want the absolute lowest monthly cost: ReferralCandy $9/mo + success fee, or Joy free plan.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“For Small E-commerce: Start with ReferralCandy or Friendbuy—quick ROI with minimal effort.” Grok 4.20 · comparative 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.