About

Why you should trust us — and where to audit if you should not.

I'm James. Twelve years on the trade-press beat at AdExchanger, four years as head of research at a London-based programmatic consultancy. This site exists because the affiliate-network industry needed a Wirecutter for ad networks, and waiting for somebody else to build it was taking too long.

Email the editor Monetize traffic

Why you should trust us — and where to audit if you should not.

Editor

James Foster

Editor — independent adtech comparison reviewer (ex-AdExchanger senior editor)

Why you should trust us

Twelve years on the AdExchanger trade-press beat (2012–2020), ending as senior editor for performance and affiliate coverage. Four years on the consultancy side (2020–2024) as head of research at a London-based programmatic firm, reading confidential RFP responses for fortune-500-tier clients. I joined the trade press six months before the first wave of European programmatic consolidation made the beat genuinely interesting, and I left the consultancy in 2024 with one specific thesis: the affiliate-network industry needs a comparison editorial property that operates on the model of a consumer publication — clear methodology, named tradeoffs, no sponsored placement.

How we picked the networks we test

We start each review cycle with a longlist of more than forty networks — drawn from rate-card outreach, practitioner referrals, conference notes, and the affiliate-program directories we keep current. From there we shortlist eight to twelve against the specific profile we are testing for — spend tier, vertical, region and attribution model on the advertiser side; volume, region mix, vertical and format on the publisher side. The shortlist criteria for every cycle are published in the review header. If a network is excluded from the shortlist, the reason is in the appendix.

How we tested

Parallel-buy on the advertiser side, parallel-monetisation on the publisher side. We run the same creative or the same placement across three to five networks simultaneously, controlled for GEO, device and time-of-day, for a minimum fourteen-day window. Twelve evaluation criteria per network — transparency, deterministic tracking, account-team responsiveness, payout punctuality, integration reliability, anti-fraud documentation, rate-card honesty, scale, vertical fit, region coverage, methodology disclosure and reputational standing. The full test design is in the appendix of every review. We refuse to publish a comparison post without one.

Conflict of interest — disclosure on every page

We run affiliate links on our highest-rated networks per use case, and we disclose that relationship at the top of every review. We do not accept sponsored placements, paid rankings or vendor-supplied case studies as primary sources. The networks I covered as a reporter at AdExchanger, and the networks that were former clients of the London consultancy I worked at, are flagged in each review's disclosure header. Where a former consultancy client is in the test pool, that review is co-authored or independently fact-checked. The scoring rubric is published — readers and practitioners can audit whether affiliate-eligible networks somehow won every category.

The editorial firewall

I kept the firewall at AdExchanger longer than the publication did, and I am not relaxing it here. Affiliate links sit downstream of the verdict, never upstream. No network sees a review before publication. No commercial team negotiates a score. The events business and the editorial business are run by two different humans, and the human running editorial is me. The trade press has been quietly captured by sponsored coverage for more than a decade now — that is the structural reason this site exists, and it is non-negotiable.

Compensation disclosure

This site is reader-supported. Revenue comes from affiliate commissions on the networks we recommend per use case, plus a small newsletter sponsorship slot that is editorially walled-off and disclosed by name in every issue. We do not take vendor money for placement, ranking, review timing or methodology shaping. If a network offers it, the answer is no on the record and on every record after that.

Professional history

2012–2020 Senior editor, performance and affiliate coverage AdExchanger, New York / London desks
2020–2024 Head of research, ad-tech intelligence product London-based programmatic consultancy
2024–present Editor and lead reviewer bestadsnetwork.com

How we score a network — the rubric in the appendix

A network is not 'good' or 'bad'. It is the right fit, or the wrong fit, for a specific advertiser profile or publisher profile in a specific region on a specific vertical. The four stages below are the ones we apply to every review before we publish. The scoring scale runs 1–5 per criterion, twelve criteria, weighted by use case.

1. Shortlist — and publish the exclusion reasons
We start with a longlist of more than forty networks per cycle and shortlist down to eight to twelve against the profile being tested. The shortlist criteria are published per review. If we exclude a network, the reason is published too — 'no rate card available', 'declined to participate', 'minimum deposit out of profile range', whatever it is.
2. Parallel test — controlled for GEO, device and time-of-day
Parallel-buy on the advertiser side, parallel-monetisation on the publisher side. Same creative, same placement, same controls. Minimum fourteen-day window. The test design — sample size, attribution window, fraud filtering — is in the appendix of every review.
3. Score — twelve criteria, 1–5 scale, weighted by use case
Transparency. Deterministic tracking. Account-team responsiveness. Payout punctuality. Integration reliability. Anti-fraud documentation. Rate-card honesty. Scale. Vertical fit. Region coverage. Methodology disclosure. Reputational standing. We will not hide the maths — the weights are published per profile.
4. Publish — verdict above, methodology in the appendix
Verdict above. Methodology in the appendix. Disclosure header on the same page. Updated on a rolling basis as account-team turnover, pricing or product changes warrant re-scoring. The date of the last methodology refresh is on every review header, with a note on which criteria were re-tested.

Editorial standards

Methodology cited, not gestured at

Every comparison post starts with the methodology paragraph and links the full test design in the appendix. No methodology, no publish — we have killed our own drafts on that rule more than once.

Use-case scoring, not 'overall best'

There is no 'best' ad network. There are networks that are right for specific advertiser profiles and specific publisher profiles in specific regions. The interesting question is which one for whom, and we will not pretend otherwise.

Networks named, not '[Network A]'

Adsy, Adsterra, PropellerAds, RichAds, Adcash, Monetag, AdPushup, Mondiad, ExoClick, Clickadu. We use real names because comparison without names is theatre, and readers can tell the difference.

Anti-hype where the verdict requires it

If a network is the wrong choice for a vertical or a region, we say so. If the market positioning diverges from the actual fit, we name the structural reason — account team, scale ceiling, region weakness. We have been embargoed by enough PR teams to be relaxed about it.

Start today

Where the methodology has a hole, please tell us.

We publish the scoring rubric and the test design precisely so readers and practitioners can audit the conclusion. If you have spotted a methodology gap or a missing disclosure, write directly — every methodology issue we have published a correction for came in by email first.

[email protected]Monetize traffic