Comparisons
Compare Platforms
Head-to-head matchups across technology, iGaming workflows, UX, scale, support and pricing.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
Income Access
75.9/100
This comparison is for operators weighing a modern iGaming-native platform against one of the oldest names in affiliate software. Cellxpert scores higher overall because its technology, player visibility, and operational workflows map closely to current casino and sportsbook needs. Income Access remains relevant because of its Paysafe ownership, long market presence, managed-services history, and operator footprint. The choice is less about whether Income Access is credible and more about whether a team wants a newer product workflow or a long-established provider with legacy scale.
Income Access
75.9/100
NetRefer
80.2/100
Income Access and NetRefer are both legacy iGaming names, so this comparison is usually about confidence, migration risk, and the type of support an operator wants. Income Access has deep market presence and Paysafe ownership. NetRefer scores higher overall because the product evidence is stronger across iGaming capability, fraud/security, technology, and UX. Neither is a lightweight choice; both are more relevant to established operators than small programmes looking for a quick setup.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
MyAffiliates
77.2/100
Cellxpert versus MyAffiliates is a direct iGaming-native matchup. Both platforms understand casino and sportsbook affiliate programmes, commission rules, multi-brand operations, and affiliate manager workflows. MyAffiliates brings age, client familiarity, and customisation depth. Cellxpert wins the scoring model by pairing iGaming-native functionality with stronger technology, UX, integrations, and operational speed, while still acknowledging that MyAffiliates has more legacy market proof.
MyAffiliates
77.2/100
Income Access
75.9/100
MyAffiliates versus Income Access is a close legacy iGaming comparison. MyAffiliates scores slightly higher overall because it performs better on iGaming programme management, UX, fraud/security, and pricing. Income Access wins categories tied to scale, onboarding, technology, and market proof. Operators choosing between the two should focus less on headline reputation and more on which workflow fits their affiliate team: customisable platform control or service-led incumbent support.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
NetRefer
80.2/100
NetRefer is one of the reference names in iGaming affiliate software, so this is a useful comparison for operators deciding between an incumbent and a newer workflow. Cellxpert scores higher overall, mainly because of technology, UX, integrations, pricing clarity, and operational usability. NetRefer remains strong in iGaming fit, scale, reliability, and market proof. The decision comes down to whether the operator values a more current product experience or the reassurance of a long-established enterprise vendor.
Affilka by SOFTSWISS
77.0/100
MyAffiliates
77.2/100
Affilka and MyAffiliates are both iGaming-native platforms, but they appeal to different buying instincts. MyAffiliates has a longer operating history and stronger public market proof. Affilka has a more modern profile, clear SOFTSWISS connection, and good fit for casino and sportsbook operators that want a pure iGaming platform. The scores are close, so the comparison should focus on whether the buyer values market maturity or a newer product environment.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
Affilka by SOFTSWISS
77.0/100
This is a comparison between two iGaming-native products, but they have different buyer profiles. Cellxpert ranks higher because it scores better across technology, data granularity, integrations, fraud controls, and pricing clarity. Affilka by SOFTSWISS is a strong fit for operators that want a pure casino and sportsbook affiliate system, especially where the SOFTSWISS ecosystem is relevant. The deciding questions are refresh speed, API transparency, and how much the buyer values ecosystem alignment versus platform flexibility.
Scaleo
82.4/100
Everflow
76.5/100
Scaleo and Everflow are both classified as general platforms in the ranking, but Scaleo has much stronger public evidence for iGaming operator and network use. Everflow scores very well on general technology, tracking, integrations, and partner-marketing infrastructure. Scaleo wins overall because the comparison is filtered through iGaming requirements: player visibility, commission rules, geo controls, fraud handling, and operator workflows. For non-iGaming performance marketing, the result could look different.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
Everflow
76.5/100
Everflow is not an iGaming-native platform, but it is worth comparing because it scores highly on general partner tracking, APIs, integrations, and attribution workflows. Cellxpert wins overall for iGaming because it handles the operator-specific requirements that general platforms usually do not cover deeply. Everflow is still a serious option for performance marketing teams that need flexible tracking across channels. The key question is whether the platform must manage player value, NGR, RevShare, hybrid deals, and multi-brand casino/sportsbook operations inside the same system.
Cellxpert
85.3/100
impact.com
75.5/100
This matchup compares an iGaming-native platform with a broad enterprise partnership platform. impact.com scores well on general technology, security, integrations, and scale, so it should not be dismissed. Cellxpert wins overall because the evaluation is based on the requirements of casino and sportsbook affiliate teams. When the buying criteria include player-level visibility, NGR, commission models, negative carryover, and multi-brand operator workflows, the iGaming-native platform has a clear advantage.