Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology
Updated: August 2025 • Maintainer: Aff Rate Editorial
TL;DR: We rate affiliate portals on a transparent 0–100 scale built from five weighted factors: Traffic & Reach (30%), Reputation & Licensing (25%), Bonus Portfolio (20%), UX/UI (15%), Affiliate Support (10%). Each factor is scored on a 0–1 rubric, normalized against our index, then combined via a weighted formula.
- Why a Transparent 0–100 Score Matters
- The Five Factors in the Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology (Weights)
- Rubrics: How We Score 0–1 (Per Factor)
- The 0–100 Formula
- How We Normalize Data & Keep It Updated
- Example Calculation (Bojoko: 79/100)
- Publishing, Stars & Structured Data
- Inclusion Criteria & Editorial Independence
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why a Transparent 0–100 Score Matters (Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology)
Transparency creates trust. A clear affiliate portal scoring methodology helps readers compare portals fairly and helps portal teams understand how to improve. By locking weights, defining rubrics, and showing a worked example, we ensure consistency from review to review. As of August 2025, Aff Rate actively tracks and updates scores for 27 affiliate portals.
The Five Factors in the Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology (Weights Included)
We combine five dimensions into a single 0–100 score. Each dimension is assessed on a normalized 0–1 scale.
| Factor | Weight | What We Look At (Signals) | Examples of Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic & Reach (T) | 30% | Relative monthly reach within our index; trend stability; branded vs. non‑brand share; geo fit. | GA4 exports (if shared), public estimators, share of search, branded query mix. |
| Reputation & Licensing (R) | 25% | Operator coverage & licensing footprint; responsible gambling posture; ADR/complaints footprint. | Public licence registers (e.g., UKGC, MGA), on‑site RG pages, third‑party dispute records. |
| Bonus Portfolio (B) | 20% | Depth and freshness of offers; clarity of terms (wagering/KYC); uniqueness; update cadence. | Offer archives, change logs, presence of filters (wager‑free, payment‑specific, geo). |
| UX/UI (U) | 15% | Mobile experience, navigation, filters/search, accessibility, Core Web Vitals. | Real device checks, CWV field data, a11y audit (labels, contrast, focus order). |
| Affiliate Support (S) | 10% | Media kit, affiliate contact, response speed, program transparency (payouts, cookie policies). | Public partner pages, SLA notes, verified contact responsiveness. |
Rubrics: How We Score 0–1 (Per Factor) — Affiliate Portal Scoring
Traffic & Reach (T) — 0–1 rubric
- 1.00–0.90: Top decile vs. our index; sustained growth; strong non‑brand share in target geos.
- 0.89–0.70: Above‑median reach; healthy mix of brand/non‑brand; growth or stable trend.
- 0.69–0.40: Around median; mixed trend; limited geo breadth.
- 0.39–0.10: Below median; shrinking or volatile; narrow geo fit.
- <0.10: Very low visibility or nascent portal.
Reputation & Licensing (R) — 0–1 rubric
- 1.00–0.90: Strong coverage of well‑regulated operators; clear RG stance; no critical unresolved disputes.
- 0.89–0.70: Good mix of regulated markets; transparent terms; few minor issues quickly resolved.
- 0.69–0.40: Mixed footprint; limited clarity on RG/disputes; some non‑critical flags.
- 0.39–0.10: Patchy licensing exposure; unclear policies; notable unresolved issues.
- <0.10: Material red flags.
Bonus Portfolio (B) — 0–1 rubric
- 1.00–0.90: Deep, current, well‑labeled offers; clear T&Cs; niche filters; frequent updates.
- 0.89–0.70: Solid coverage; most T&Cs explicit; routine updates.
- 0.69–0.40: Moderate depth; partial clarity; infrequent updates.
- 0.39–0.10: Shallow, stale, or unclear offers.
UX/UI (U) — 0–1 rubric
- 1.00–0.90: Excellent mobile UX, fast LCP/INP, robust filtering/sorting, accessible markup.
- 0.89–0.70: Good mobile UX; minor CWV/a11y gaps.
- 0.69–0.40: Usable but slow in peak paths; sparse filters.
- 0.39–0.10: Friction, layout shift, or navigation debt.
Affiliate Support (S) — 0–1 rubric
- 1.00–0.90: Clear partner deck, direct contacts, transparent cookie/payout terms, responsive support.
- 0.89–0.70: Good docs and contacts; occasional delays.
- 0.69–0.40: Basic info; slow responses; unclear terms.
- 0.39–0.10: Hard to reach; minimal transparency.
The 0–100 Formula (Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology)
Weighted Score (0–100) =
30 × T + 25 × R + 20 × B + 15 × U + 10 × S
where T, R, B, U, S ∈ [0, 1]
How We Normalize Data & Keep It Updated
Each factor is normalized to 0–1 before weighting. For numeric signals with wide variance (e.g., visits), we apply log‑scale min–max or quantile mapping across our current index.
// Example (log min–max, clipped to [0,1])
T_norm = clip( ( log(1 + visits) - log(1 + min_visits) )
/ ( log(1 + max_visits) - log(1 + min_visits) ), 0, 1 )
Update cadence: quarterly for all tracked portals; ad‑hoc for major product/UX or licensing changes. We keep a change log and show a “Last updated” timestamp in each review.
Example Calculation (Bojoko: 79/100)
Illustrative example below. These component scores (0–1) are for demonstration of the method.
| Factor | Weight | Raw (0–1) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Traffic & Reach (T) | 30 | 0.80 | 24.00 |
| Reputation & Licensing (R) | 25 | 0.85 | 21.25 |
| Bonus Portfolio (B) | 20 | 0.75 | 15.00 |
| UX/UI (U) | 15 | 0.85 | 12.75 |
| Affiliate Support (S) | 10 | 0.60 | 6.00 |
| Total Weighted Score | 79.00 / 100 | ||
Stars mapping (optional): stars = round( (79 / 100) × 5, 1 ) = 4.0 / 5
Publishing, Stars & Structured Data
In each affiliate review we display a single canonical score (0–100) sourced from our ACF fields and optionally publish Review JSON‑LD. Use bestRating and worstRating to keep the 0–100 scale.
<script type="application/ld+json">
{
"@context":"https://schema.org",
"@type":"Review",
"itemReviewed":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Bojoko","url":"https://www.bojoko.com/"},
"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Aff Rate"},
"datePublished":"2025-08-02",
"reviewBody":"Independent review based on traffic, licensing, bonus portfolio, UX and affiliate support.",
"reviewRating":{"@type":"Rating","ratingValue":"79","bestRating":"100","worstRating":"0"}
}
</script>
Display rule: show the score once (in the details table). Avoid duplicating a different score in the body text.
Inclusion Criteria & Editorial Independence
- Publicly accessible affiliate portal with meaningful traffic and a consistent content model.
- Clear disclosures for offers and responsible gambling.
- Aff Rate maintains editorial independence. Commercial relationships are labeled and links use
rel="sponsored"where appropriate.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) — Affiliate Portal Scoring Methodology
How often do you update the affiliate portal scoring?
Quarterly for all portals we track, plus ad‑hoc updates after major product, licensing, or UX changes.
Can a portal request a re‑review or provide GA4 access?
Yes. Verified data can improve accuracy. Use our Submit Your Site page to request a refresh.
How should portals improve their 0–100 score?
Focus on the weakest factor first. For example, clarify T&Cs and refresh offers (Bonus Portfolio), ship a11y fixes and reduce LCP/INP (UX), and publish a partner deck with contact & payout transparency (Affiliate Support).
Why not use a 5‑star scale only?
We compute internally on 0–100 for precision. Stars are derived for familiarity in snippets, but 0–100 remains the canonical value.
Do you cover all countries and licences?
We evaluate portals globally but weigh relevance by geo and licensing posture. Reputation considers coverage of well‑regulated markets.
What if a portal disputes a score?
We’ll review the evidence. Send details via Contact and we will log any adjustments in the page’s update history.
Want updates? Subscribe to the Aff Rate Newsletter to get quarterly scoring changes and new methodology notes.