Alternative
ByDesign Technologies Alternative
People searching an incumbent vendor by name are usually already on it, which makes this a migration question rather than a shortlist question. So this page states what we do on each deciding capability, sets out what a platform migration actually costs in the places an invoice does not show — and is explicit about when the right answer is to stay.
What you get
Outcomes operators report after moving onto the platform.
No unsourced claims about anyone
Every competitor cell here is undocumented, because we have not completed a sourced verification pass. It does not mean a capability is missing.
Three tests before you shortlist anyone
Run them against your current platform first. If it reproduces closed periods, performs at your projected size and exports everything, the case for moving is weak.
Migration is history, not products
Products and customers migrate easily. Commission history that must keep reconciling to what was paid is the whole project.
The method, briefly
Three rules apply to every competitor page on this site, and they are why the right-hand column above is empty:
- A competitor cell is filled in only from a public source, with the URL cited and the date recorded. Marketing copy, a sales call and a review site are not sources.
- Undocumented never means no.
- The badge follows the fact, not the column.
Several rows above are additionally things only you can answer, because they depend on your contract rather than on anyone’s public documentation. Those are the rows worth answering first. The full framework is on the comparison page.
Before you evaluate anyone, test your incumbent
This is not a rhetorical gesture. Migration is expensive in ways that do not appear on an invoice, and three tests will tell you whether you have a real problem or a preference.
Can it reproduce a closed period? Change a rank threshold, then re-run a month that has already been paid. If the numbers come back identical, your engine versions its rule set with the run, which is the property that decides whether a two-year-old commission dispute takes two minutes or two weeks.
Does the genealogy perform at your projected size? Not your current size. Open a node at depth forty in your largest organisation and time it.
Can you export everything, today, yourself? Both trees with structure intact, full commission history at order-level granularity, documents. Without a support request.
If all three pass, the case for moving is weak. We will tell you that during scoping rather than after a statement of work.
What migration actually costs
| Cost | Where it shows up |
|---|---|
| Implementation and configuration | on the invoice |
| Data reconciliation | in the weeks before cutover, and in every figure that changes |
| Retraining | corporate staff, then field leaders with muscle memory in the old back office |
| Parallel running | two systems computing the same period, for at least one cycle |
| Distributor trust | any statement that no longer matches what somebody remembers being paid |
The invoice is usually the smallest row in that table. The last row is the one that has no price and the longest memory, which is why the acceptance test below is contractual rather than a courtesy.
The acceptance test
Take a closed period — a month you have already paid. Load the same orders and the same genealogy into the new engine. Run it. Reconcile line by line against what was actually paid.
Every difference is one of two things: a bug in the new implementation, found before it paid anyone, or a place where the old system was wrong. The second is uncomfortable and still much better found now.
That test is the acceptance criterion in the statement of work, not a demonstration. The buying page covers the rest of what belongs in the contract, including export rights, exit terms and whether plan changes are an allowance or a project.
What is genuinely hard to carry across
Two things, and both are worth knowing before anybody signs:
A placement tree that was never stored separately. If your current platform holds one tree, the placement structure cannot be reconstructed from records that do not exist. It arrives as an opening structure. The genealogy page explains why both trees are needed and why this is unbackfillable.
Volume held as running totals. Periods with no order-level detail cannot be recomputed. They come across as opening positions, and historical statements are preserved as records rather than recalculated.
We identify which parts of your history fall into these categories during scoping. Saying so before the work starts is the difference between a migration plan and an argument.
What we would want you to check about us
The same eight rows, in a sandbox, with your plan configured — plus the three incumbent tests, pointed at us. The demo page lists what we show and what we decline to do on a call.
Side-by-side comparison
| Capability | MLMSoftwarePro | ByDesign Technologies |
|---|---|---|
| Historical commission statements still reconcile after migration | Migrated as preserved historical statements rather than recomputed under the new configuration, so a two-year-old statement matches what was paid. | Not documentedThis is an export question for your current vendor: ask what commission history you can extract, at what granularity. |
| Both genealogy trees exportable with structure intact | Placement and sponsorship exported as separate structures, with the relationships preserved rather than flattened. | Not documentedAsk your current vendor for both trees in a single export, then check whether placement survived it. |
| Full self-service export with no fee and no throttle | Distributors, both trees, orders, full commission history, wallet ledger and documents, in CSV or JSON, initiated by you at any time. | Not documentedThe most useful question you can ask an incumbent. Ask for it live, then ask for the termination clause. |
| Re-run a closed commission period and reproduce it exactly | Yes. Rule sets are versioned with the run, so a closed period re-executes to identical output after thresholds change. | Not documentedTest it on your current platform before you evaluate anyone else. If it passes, the case for moving is weaker. |
| Parallel run against a closed historical period as the acceptance test | Yes, and it is the contractual acceptance criterion rather than a courtesy: the same orders and tree, reconciled line by line to what was paid. | Not documentedAsk any vendor you are considering what their acceptance test is, and get it in the statement of work. |
| Ongoing plan changes as an allowance rather than a new statement of work | An allowance in the recurring fee, because a company that pays per plan change stops fixing plans that need fixing. | Not documentedAsk what a rank-threshold change costs today, on your current contract. |
| Data residency and a processing agreement naming you as controller | Region selectable, sub-processors and their countries listed, processing agreement naming you as controller. | Not documentedRelevant to both GDPR and POPIA, and the obligation is yours regardless of who hosts. |
| Transition window and certified deletion at termination | A stated transition window with export available throughout, then certified deletion on request. | Not documentedAsk for this in writing from whoever you end up with, including us. |
Competitor columns record only what that vendor documents publicly, as of the date above. “Not documented” means we found no public statement either way — not that the capability is missing. Verify anything decision-critical directly with the vendor.August 20, 2026.
At a glance
| What we can verify | Our own platform, in a sandbox, on a call — including every row in the table above |
|---|---|
| What we will not do | Publish a negative capability claim about a named competitor without a public source and a date |
| Acceptance test we contract to | A closed historical period recomputed in the new engine and reconciled line by line against what was actually paid |
| What is hardest to migrate | A placement tree that was never stored separately, and volume history held only as running totals with no order-level detail |
| When we advise staying | If your current engine reproduces closed periods, your genealogy performs at your projected size and you can export everything today |
| If you find a documented answer | Send us the URL and we will add it to the table with the citation and the date checked |
Questions operators ask before they switch
Straight answers on plan mechanics, migration risk and compliance. If yours is not here, ask us directly.
Why is every competitor cell undocumented?
What does a platform migration actually cost?
When should we not migrate?
What is the hardest part of migrating commission history?
Ready to Transform Your Direct Selling Business?
Send us your plan rules and we will run a live commission cycle against them, on your numbers, before you commit to anything.
- Configured in a sandbox before the call, usually within two business days
- No slide deck and no card — you watch your own plan pay out
- Your plan document stays confidential and is deleted on request
Prefer email? Write to us at sales@mlmsoftwarepro.com