JAJPO Score™ v2 — SaaS Edition
The Decision Framework for SaaS & AI Affiliate Launches
Why this framework exists
Affiliates promoting SaaS and AI launches face a structural problem: the decision to promote happens before any real performance data exists. By the time public EPC numbers, churn signals, or refund patterns appear, the launch window is usually closed.
JAJPO Score v2 is the framework we use to evaluate that decision under uncertainty. Twelve criteria across three layers, scored 0–10 each, weighted to a final score out of 10. Every score is published with reasoning, every prediction is tracked against outcomes, and every month we publish our accuracy ledger — including the calls we got wrong.
This page is the public methodology. Every JAJPO score links back to it. Anyone can audit any score by re-running the criteria themselves. That auditability is the entire point.
How scores are produced
JAJPO scores are AI-assisted research with editorial review. Our scoring pipeline ingests public data — the product’s sales page, founder history, partner program terms, funding signals, public traction metrics — and produces a draft score with reasoning across all twelve criteria. A human editor reviews, adjusts, and signs off on every published score before it goes live. We disclose this openly because the alternative — pretending scores are produced by some proprietary algorithm — collapses trust the moment anyone looks closely. Bloomberg Terminal works the same way. Traders still trust it because the methodology is public.
The three layers
Layer A — Offer Foundation (30 points). Is the product itself promotable? Clear value, real demand, a pricing structure that converts.
Layer B — Affiliate Economics (45 points). Will the affiliate actually make money? Recurring revenue quality, commission structure, attribution reliability, funnel performance, traffic compatibility.
Layer C — Vendor & Customer Trust (25 points). Does the vendor pay reliably and retain customers? Track record, customer LTV signal, partner platform maturity, affiliate support quality.
Layer B carries the most weight because in SaaS, a great product with broken affiliate economics is unpromotable, while a moderately strong product with bulletproof economics is genuinely promotable. We weight what affiliates actually get paid for, not what looks impressive on a sales page.
Layer A — Offer Foundation (30 points)
A1 — Offer Clarity (10 points)
Can a cold visitor understand what the product does and who it’s for in 10 seconds? Score the sales page, not the product idea.
10 | Crystal-clear headline, specific value proposition, who-it’s-for stated explicitly, immediate proof element above the fold. |
5 | Value is clear after reading the hero section but takes effort. Audience could be inferred but isn’t stated. |
0 | Confusing positioning. Cold visitor has to scroll and read for 60+ seconds to understand the offer. Generic ‘AI-powered platform’ language with no specific use case. |
A2 — Market Demand Evidence (10 points)
Is there proven buyer appetite for this category, or is the founder hoping demand will exist? Must cite at least one data point — search volume, comparable product traction, active community size.
10 | Established category with proven buyers. Comparable products have public traction (revenue, customer counts). Search volume confirms demand. Active communities discuss the problem this solves. |
5 | Adjacent category with proven demand but this specific product is more speculative. Limited public comparables. |
0 | Founder is creating demand for a new category. No comparable products with traction. Educated guess at best. |
A3 — Unique Angle Strength (5 points)
Does this stand out from the 5 nearest competitors, or is it a feature wrapper on an existing tool? In SaaS, a weak angle just means slower growth — economics matter more than uniqueness, which is why this is weighted lower than in W+/JVZoo scoring.
10 | Genuinely new mechanism, workflow, or data advantage. Not ‘we’re like X but better’ — actually different. |
5 | Recognizable category with one or two real differentiators. Affiliates can name a clear reason to choose it. |
0 | Direct clone of an established tool with no meaningful difference. Affiliates would have to invent the differentiation themselves. |
A4 — Pricing & Value Alignment (5 points)
Does the price match what’s delivered? Are tiers structured to convert (free trial, freemium entry, clear upgrade ladder)? Overpriced products kill conversion. Underpriced products kill commission economics.
10 | Clear value-to-price ratio. Free trial or freemium entry that converts. Upgrade tiers structured logically. Pricing comparable to or better than category benchmarks. |
5 | Reasonable pricing. Trial exists but conversion path could be clearer. Some friction in the upgrade ladder. |
0 | Overpriced relative to value delivered, or no trial mechanism, or pricing structure actively hurts affiliate conversion (e.g., $0 free plan that satisfies most users). |
Layer B — Affiliate Economics (45 points)
B1 — Recurring Revenue Quality (12 points)
This is the single biggest economic driver in SaaS affiliate marketing. Is the commission recurring or one-time? For how long? At what percentage? A 30% recurring commission for the lifetime of the customer pays vastly more than a 50% one-time bounty over any 12-month window.
10 | Recurring commission for the lifetime of the customer (or 12+ months minimum) at 25%+ rate. Commission also applies to upgrades and expansion revenue. No earnings cap. |
5 | Recurring for 6–12 months at 15–25%, or one-time payout that’s high enough to be meaningful (>$200 per conversion). Some restrictions on upgrades. |
0 | One-time payout under $50, or recurring under 60 days, or commission caps that destroy long-term economics. |
B2 — Commission Structure (10 points)
Beyond the headline rate, the structure determines whether affiliates actually get paid. Payout threshold, payout frequency, payout method, refund clawback policy, and minimum-revenue gates.
10 | Low payout threshold ($50 or under). Monthly automated payouts. Multiple payout methods (PayPal, Wise, bank). Reasonable refund clawback window (30 days, not 90+). No surprise gates. |
5 | Reasonable threshold ($100–$200). Quarterly or ‘when threshold hit’ payouts. One or two payout methods. Refund clawbacks exist but documented. |
0 | High threshold ($500+) that delays payouts indefinitely. Manual payouts. Single payout method. Aggressive refund clawback policy (90+ days) or undocumented chargeback rules. |
B3 — Cookie Window & Attribution Reliability (10 points)
Pro affiliates evaluate this before commission rate. Broken tracking means broken paychecks. Score on cookie length, attribution model (first-party vs. third-party), and tracking stack reliability.
10 | 60–180 day cookie window. First-party cookie tracking (browsers no longer block these in 2026). Documented attribution model. Tracking runs through an established platform — PartnerStack, Tolt, Rewardful, Impact, FirstPromoter — with audited payouts. |
5 | 30–60 day cookie window. Mixed first-party and third-party tracking. Custom in-house tracking on top of Stripe or similar. Attribution rules documented but with caveats. |
0 | Cookie window under 30 days. Third-party cookies only (will break in 2026 browsers). Custom DIY tracking with no audit trail. Last-click attribution with no overrides for content affiliates. |
B4 — Funnel Quality (8 points)
Does the vendor’s funnel actually convert affiliate traffic? Test it personally — sign up, walk through onboarding, check checkout. Affiliates aren’t paid for clicks, they’re paid for conversions.
10 | Mobile-optimized, fast load times, frictionless signup, clear upgrade path from free to paid. Onboarding immediately demonstrates value. Checkout is one or two clicks. |
5 | Average funnel. Some friction in signup or upgrade. Onboarding works but doesn’t actively drive conversion. Mobile experience is acceptable but not great. |
0 | Multiple friction points. Signup requires excessive information. Onboarding leaks users. Checkout fails on mobile. Pricing page confuses rather than clarifies. |
B5 — Traffic Type Compatibility (5 points)
How many traffic types can promote this effectively? Score the breadth: email (1pt), paid traffic (1pt), organic SEO (1pt), social/community (1pt), YouTube/video (1pt). Note explicit exclusions in the breakdown.
5 | All 5 traffic types can promote effectively. Vendor provides assets for each (swipe copy, ad creatives, SEO-friendly product pages, social graphics, YouTube-ready demos). |
3 | 3 of 5 traffic types are viable. Some channels excluded by product nature or vendor restrictions. |
0 | Only one traffic type works (often paid traffic to the sales page). Vendor restricts coupon sites, brand bidding, or specific channels in ways that limit the affiliate base. |
Layer C — Vendor & Customer Trust (25 points)
C1 — Vendor Track Record (8 points)
What’s the vendor’s history? Funding stage, founder background, prior products, public traction signals. First-time founders aren’t disqualified, but they score lower on confidence — and that affects the verdict.
10 | Established company with multi-year track record. Public revenue or customer count. Founder has prior successful exits or 5+ years operating the business. Active LinkedIn presence and public communication. |
5 | 1–2 years operating. Some public traction signals (case studies, user counts, press coverage). Founder is reachable and responsive. Funding round or bootstrapped revenue confirmed. |
0 | First-time founder, no public traction, no funding signal, no prior exits. Pre-launch with no proof of execution capacity. May still be promotable but flagged as Low Confidence. |
C2 — Customer LTV & Retention Signal (8 points)
In recurring-commission SaaS, retention is the affiliate’s compounding income. A 30% recurring commission on a product with 36-month retention pays 10x more than the same commission on a product with 4-month churn. Score based on public retention signals: industry benchmarks, vendor disclosures, comparable product data.
10 | Public retention data shows 24+ month average customer lifetime. Net revenue retention >100% (expansion exceeds churn). Product is workflow-essential or data-locked-in (high switching cost). |
5 | Estimated 12–24 month retention based on category benchmarks. Some switching cost. Vendor disclosed retention numbers in marketing materials but unverified. |
0 | Likely retention under 6 months. Easy switching cost (no data lock-in, no workflow dependency). Category itself has high churn (e.g., novelty AI tools, single-feature browser extensions). |
C3 — Partner Program Platform Maturity (5 points)
Does the affiliate program run on an established platform with audited payouts, or is it a Stripe-plus-Google-Sheet operation? This is separate from B3 — that criterion is about tracking accuracy; this one is about payment reliability.
5 | Runs on PartnerStack, Tolt, Rewardful, Impact, FirstPromoter, or Tapfiliate. Automated payouts. Public dashboard with real-time data. Multi-year platform history. |
3 | Custom-built program on top of Stripe Connect or similar payment infrastructure. Documented but not audited. Payouts work but require manual oversight. |
0 | Manual program run through email and PayPal. No dashboard. No automation. High risk of payout disputes or ‘lost’ commissions. |
C4 — Affiliate Support Quality (4 points)
Does the vendor actually support their affiliates? Affiliates with swipe copy, demo accounts, dedicated managers, and active partner communities convert at 2–3x the rate of unsupported affiliates.
4 | Full partner page with swipe copy, ad creatives, video demos, comparison content. Demo account access. Dedicated affiliate manager. Active partner community (Slack/Discord). Responsive to questions within 24 hours. |
2 | Basic partner page with referral link and a few banners. Email support but no dedicated manager. Response times 2–5 days. |
0 | Referral link only. No assets. No support. Affiliate is on their own to figure out positioning. |
The scoring formula
Each criterion is scored 0–10. That raw score is multiplied by the criterion’s max points, divided by 10, to produce weighted points. All 12 weighted points sum to a total out of 100. Final JAJPO score = total ÷ 10.
Worked example: A product scoring 8/10 on every criterion produces a weighted total of 80, divided by 10 = 8.0 final JAJPO score. A product scoring 5/10 on every criterion produces 50 ÷ 10 = 5.0 final JAJPO score.
Asymmetric example: A product scoring 10/10 on Layer A (offer is excellent) but 4/10 on B1 Recurring Revenue Quality, 6/10 on B3 Attribution, and 5/10 on the rest of Layer B and C produces a final score around 6.2 — Conditional. The framework correctly identifies that a great product with mediocre affiliate economics is not a Promote.
Verdict thresholds
Score | Verdict | What it means |
7.5 – 10.0 | Promote | Strong across most criteria. Recurring economics work. Attribution is reliable. Vendor is credible. Affiliate can expect reasonable returns with standard promotion effort. |
5.0 – 7.4 | Conditional | Viable for specific traffic types or audience segments. Breakdown specifies exactly which conditions make it worth promoting. Never left vague — every Conditional verdict names which affiliates should promote and which should skip. |
0 – 4.9 | Skip | Fundamental weaknesses in offer, economics, attribution, or vendor that make affiliate ROI unlikely. Promoting risks your audience trust and your time. Save your traffic for something that actually pays. |
Hard-floor disqualifiers (instant Skip)
Regardless of total score, any product triggering ONE of these conditions is automatically Skip — Do Not Promote. A product cannot score its way past these. They exist because trust collapses faster than it builds.
- Documented payout disputes. Vendor has unresolved affiliate payment complaints in public forums or partner platform reviews.
- Third-party cookies only. No first-party tracking fallback. Tracking is guaranteed to break in 2026 browsers, meaning affiliates won’t get paid for legitimate referrals.
- Cookie window under 30 days for B2B SaaS. B2B sales cycles run 30–90 days. A 7-day or 14-day cookie kills affiliate ROI structurally.
- No public refund/clawback policy. Vendor reserves the right to claw back commissions but won’t disclose the rules. This is how affiliates get burned silently.
- FTC-violation income claims. Sales page makes specific income guarantees, ‘$10K/month guaranteed’ style claims, or testimonials that violate FTC SaaS guidelines.
- Rebrand of a previously refunded product. Same product, new name, same problems. Affiliates promoting it lose audience trust the moment subscribers recognize it.
The re-score protocol
A score is a snapshot. The product changes, the partner program changes, real performance data emerges. We re-score on four triggers, and every update is published with the delta visible — ‘Score updated 6.8 → 7.4 on [date]: partner program migrated to PartnerStack, attribution now first-party.’ This is what keeps the framework honest.
Trigger 1 — Pre-launch to live (within 72 hours of launch)
When a sales page goes live after a pre-launch score, we re-score A1 (Offer Clarity), A4 (Pricing), B4 (Funnel Quality). The full funnel can finally be tested.
Trigger 2 — Launch +14 days
Real affiliate reports start surfacing. We update B1 (Recurring Revenue Quality based on actual payout patterns), B2 (Commission Structure if any disputes emerge), C2 (LTV signal based on early retention data), C4 (Affiliate Support Quality based on responsiveness).
Trigger 3 — Launch +60 days
Final score update for the launch cycle. Vendor’s track record (C1) is permanently updated based on this launch’s performance. The data from this launch becomes part of the vendor’s profile for all future scoring.
Trigger 4 — Community flag
If 3+ affiliates report unexpected results — good or bad — we re-score within 48 hours and publish the flag publicly. ‘Affiliates reporting attribution failures — under investigation’ is more trustworthy than silent backtracking.
Confidence levels
Every JAJPO score is published with a Confidence Level — High, Medium, or Low. This isn’t decorative. It tells affiliates how much weight to put on the verdict.
High Confidence
Vendor has 2+ years of public history. Partner program runs on an established platform with audited payouts. Sales page is live and complete. Comparable products provide LTV benchmarks. Editor has tested the product personally or via demo access.
Medium Confidence
Vendor is 6–24 months old, or partner program is custom-built but documented. LTV is estimated from category benchmarks rather than direct data. Sales page is complete but funnel hasn’t been tested end-to-end. Score is reliable but with explicit caveats noted in the breakdown.
Low Confidence
First-time vendor, pre-launch product, or partner program details incomplete. Score is based on what’s publicly knowable. A Low Confidence score still publishes, but with a clear ‘check back in 14 days for the re-score with real data’ note. Affiliates use these as watch-list items, not promote-now decisions.
The accuracy ledger
Every prediction we make is tracked against outcomes. Every month we publish: how many products we scored Promote, how many actually outperformed; how many we scored Skip, how many actually did poorly; how many Conditional verdicts hit their stated conditions.
The accuracy ledger lives at jajpo.com/accuracy. An accuracy rate of 70% published openly beats a competitor claiming 100% in their marketing copy. Nobody in the SaaS affiliate intelligence space publishes this. It is the single biggest trust signal we can offer.
If we tell you to Promote and it bombs, we admit it. If we tell you to Skip and it converts well, we admit that too. Then we update the framework, re-weight criteria, and explain what we learned. That iteration is what compounds into a real moat over 12 months.
How to use this framework
If you’re an affiliate: Use JAJPO scores as a decision filter, not a substitute for your own judgment. The score tells you whether the launch is structurally promotable. You decide whether it fits your specific audience.
If you’re a SaaS founder: Submit your launch at jajpo.com/submit. Free scoring for the first 30 days. Featured placement available afterward. A high JAJPO score is a credibility signal to serious affiliates. A lower score with detailed reasoning tells you exactly what to fix before launch.
If you want to audit a score: Every published score links to its full breakdown. You can re-score any product yourself using the criteria above. If your math differs from ours, email the editor with your reasoning. Disagreements get reviewed in 48 hours and either resolved or published as ‘editorial dispute’ notes on the score page.
Last updated: November 2025. This methodology is versioned. Material changes are logged at jajpo.com/methodology/changelog.