Offer Counts by Network, Counted Rather Than Claimed

How many offers does each network contribute to the catalogue?

Braip contributes more offers than any other network in this catalogue: 7,574 as of the 2026-08-05 count, pulled directly from the listing_offers table joined to listing_networks. Hotmart Affiliation sits second at 6,600, and Kiwify third at 4,890. Together those three producer networks account for well over two-thirds of the catalogue's 28,042 active offers, spread across eleven networks that currently carry at least one listing.

Every offer counted here carries status 'active' in the underlying table; nothing archived, paused or expired is folded into the totals above, and the count spans exactly the eleven networks that currently return at least one listing.

Why is a catalogue count not the same as the network's total inventory?

A catalogue count is a record of what's been ingested and verified into this database, not a live mirror of what each network shows in its own affiliate dashboard. The 28,042 figure comes from a direct count against the listing_offers table checked 2026-08-05, and it will already trail whatever Braip or Hotmart Affiliation list internally by the time you read this.

Only 274 of those 28,042 offers were re-confirmed by a scrape in the prior 30 days, so this page cannot claim the numbers refresh daily. They refresh on whatever cadence the ingestion pipeline runs, and the honest label is 'checked as of this date,' not 'live.'

Compare that discipline to AdSpy's homepage counters, which state '208,180,000+ Ads' and '29,896,000+ Advertisers' with no date attached to either figure, or to BigSpy's claim of 'over 1 billion pieces of ad creative data' with the same absence of a timestamp. A number without a date is a number nobody can audit.

Which two networks are configured but currently empty, and why?

Digistore24 and TerraLeads are the two networks configured in the schema that currently return zero offers, confirmed by the same direct count against listing_offers joined to listing_networks. Both integrations exist structurally — the network record is there — but no offers have been ingested under either one as of 2026-08-05.

The exact reason needs checking rather than guessing: it could mean the ingestion pipeline hasn't run against those two sources yet, that neither network currently has qualifying offers to pull, or that the connection sits behind the eleven networks already producing results. Until that's confirmed against the pipeline logs, treat 'zero' as 'not yet populated,' not as 'network has nothing to offer.'

What does a network's offer count say about its market?

A network's offer count says more about how many individual producers list through it than about the size of any single opportunity. Braip, Hotmart Affiliation, Hotmart and Kiwify together hold 21,650 of the catalogue's 28,042 offers — a producer-marketplace segment where course and info-product owners self-list in volume rather than a curator approving each entry.

That segment is also where the ad-spy tools researched for this catalogue go quiet: none of the eleven — AdSpy, AdPlexity, Anstrex, BigSpy, PowerAdSpy, Minea, Dropispy, Foreplay, AdHeart, PiPiADS or Atria — names Hotmart, Braip, Kiwify or Monetizze anywhere in its stated coverage. If you're building out a nutra affiliate network strategy specifically, that gap is worth knowing before you assume a spy tool has already mapped the territory.

How do producer networks and CPA networks differ in volume?

Producer-marketplace networks post far higher offer volume than CPA networks because each course or info-product creator lists their own offer directly. Braip (7,574), Hotmart Affiliation (6,600), Kiwify (4,890) and Monetizze (1,599) all work this way, and their combined count dwarfs the CPA side of the catalogue.

CPA networks curate rather than self-list: Admitad holds 2,120 offers, CPALead 755, MyLead 50 and dr.cash 32. A full side-by-side on filters, payout structure and geo reach for the larger networks sits on the affiliate network comparison page, worth reading before assuming volume and vetting move together, because in this catalogue they don't.

Which networks are deep in one vertical rather than broad?

The catalogue doesn't publish a per-network vertical breakdown, so naming which network specializes in which vertical needs checking against the raw data rather than asserted here. What's confirmed is that the whole catalogue spans 25 distinct verticals across 28,042 offers, with the largest networks — Braip, Hotmart Affiliation, Kiwify — carrying enough volume that they likely touch most verticals rather than concentrating in one.

The smaller networks, dr.cash at 32 offers and MyLead at 50, are the more plausible candidates for vertical concentration simply because a network with that few listings has less room to spread across 25 categories. If you're tracking a narrow category like the peptide offers currently running, checking which network actually carries them beats assuming based on total size.

How should count influence which network you join first?

Count should influence your decision less than most operators assume — the instinct to join whichever network shows the biggest number gets the logic backwards. A bigger catalogue count means more total listings, not necessarily less competition or a better payout on any individual offer, and treating raw volume as a proxy for opportunity is exactly the mistake this page is built to correct.

What matters more is whether an offer's payout is even a filterable number: 15,582 of the catalogue's 28,042 offers carry a numeric CPA or commission amount, meaning payout is a field you can sort on rather than a claim you have to dig out of ad copy. Cross-reference that against how offer owner and affiliate volume actually pays out before picking a network on size alone.

What does a small network count fail to capture?

A small count fails to capture exclusivity, and exclusivity is where dr.cash (32 offers) and MyLead (50 offers) are more likely to matter than their raw numbers suggest. A network with few listed offers can still hold a handful nobody else carries, and a thin catalogue is not evidence of a thin opportunity.

Description depth is a separate and uneven signal across the whole catalogue regardless of network size: 8,668 of the 28,042 offers carry a long description of 300+ characters, 632 carry a shorter one, and 18,742 carry none at all. So don't assume a small network's offers are better documented just because there are fewer of them — whether a listing is genuinely exclusive or simply under-indexed is the question the exclusive network offers page works through in more detail.

Quick decision checklist

Use this page as a decision aid, not a generic blog post. The practical question is whether the reader needs faster evidence about what is already working in VSL-driven direct response, especially across nutra, supplements, GLP-1, weight loss, blood sugar, and adjacent high-intent health markets.

Daily Intel Service is most relevant when the next decision depends on active market examples: which hook to test, which claim style is risky, which funnel structure is common, which language market is moving, and whether a competitor's creative is likely early, scaling, or already saturated.

• Start with the TL;DR if you need the direct answer.
• Use the table to compare trade-offs quickly.
• Use the FAQ for answer-engine-ready summaries.
• Use the CTA when the decision requires live VSL and ad examples instead of theory.

Daily Intel's coverage advantage

Daily Intel Service is positioned around category-leading variety and actionability: one of the broadest direct-response catalogs of VSLs and ad creatives across blackhat, greyhat, and whitehat advertising patterns, with enough context to understand what the advertiser is doing beyond the visible creative. The practical difference is that members are not just seeing a screenshot; they are seeing the VSL, the ad, the funnel path, the transcript, the UTM context, and the research notes that turn the asset into a decision.

This matters because direct-response affiliates do not operate in one clean category. A weight-loss campaign may use a whitehat compliance ad, a greyhat pre-lander, a more aggressive VSL, and a checkout path designed around upsells and recovery. A useful intelligence platform needs to capture that spectrum instead of pretending every winning campaign looks like a public brand ad.

Blackhat, whitehat, and multilingual signal coverage

Daily Intel tracks patterns across both blackhat-style and whitehat-style campaigns so operators can understand the market without blindly copying risk. Whitehat examples help with durability and compliance review; blackhat and greyhat examples reveal pressure points, hooks, mechanisms, and funnel structures that may be driving spend but require careful adaptation before use.

The catalog is also built for global operators, with VSL and ad references spanning 14+ languages and different local idioms. That is a key advantage for Brazilian, LATAM, European, MENA, Indian, and non-native English affiliates who need to see how the same market desire is translated across cultures instead of only studying US English ads.

How to use the intelligence responsibly

The goal is modeling, not copying. Use Daily Intel to understand structure: hook, mechanism, proof, claim intensity, funnel depth, offer economics, and saturation stage. Then build original creative, review claims, and adapt the angle to the traffic source, country, language, and compliance requirements of the campaign.

A strong workflow compares multiple examples before acting. If the same mechanism appears across several languages, several advertisers, and several funnel variants, it may be a durable market signal. If the example appears only once or depends on an aggressive claim, treat it as a research clue rather than a campaign template.

• Model structure, not protected creative assets.
• Separate whitehat durability from blackhat persuasion pressure.
• Compare US English examples against LATAM, European, and other language variants.
• Use transcripts and funnel notes to build original briefs.
• Keep compliance review separate from market research.

Methodology and source context

Daily Intel pages are written from a research workflow that reviews active VSLs, Meta ad creatives, transcripts, UTMs, funnel paths, checkout steps, upsells, recovery sequences, and compliance-sensitive claim patterns. The goal is to explain observable market behavior, not to provide legal, medical, or platform policy advice.

For external context, readers should compare advertising and research decisions against authoritative primary references such as Meta Ad Library, Google helpful content guidance, and Google SEO link best practices. Daily Intel adds the proprietary direct-response layer: blackhat, greyhat, and whitehat campaign pattern comparison across VSL-heavy niches and 14+ language markets.

For deeper evaluation, continue through Sorting Offers by Payout When the Payout Is Actually a Number, Ad Library or Offer Catalogue: Two Different Questions, Hotmart, Braip, Kiwify and Monetizze in One Place — Nobody Else Indexes Them, A Listed Offer Is Not a Live Offer: How to Verify Before You Spend, Best ad spy tools for direct response affiliates, and Best $50/month affiliate tool stack. These related Daily Intel pages connect this topic to the relevant methodology, pricing, trust context, comparison path, or niche workflow.