Side-by-Side Comparison
MONAT Global vs Rodan + Fields
An honest comparison to help you choose the right opportunity
Feature Comparison
Overall Rating
2.0/5
3.0/5
Winner
Startup Cost
N/A
N/A
Tie
Residual Income
1.8
2.5
Winner
Simplicity
2.5
3.5
Winner
Transparency
2.0
3.0
Winner
Community & Support
2.5
3.0
Winner
Value for Money
1.8
3.0
Winner
Overall Rating
2.0/5
3.0/5
Winner
Detailed Breakdown
MONAT Global
Pros
- Significant VIP customer base shows genuine product demand
- Clean ingredient formulas with no harmful chemicals (per brand claims)
- Strong social media presence and marketing materials provided
- Monthly residual from VIP customer subscriptions
Cons
- 2024 average annual income for all U.S. Market Partners: $758 (per MONAT disclosure)
- 41% of U.S. Market Partners were inactive and earned $0 in 2024
- Hundreds of lawsuits from customers claiming hair loss from products
Rodan + Fields
Pros
- Pivoted away from MLM to affiliate model in September 2024 — more transparent earning structure
- Products developed by credentialed dermatologists (creators of Proactiv)
- Strong brand recognition and loyal customer base
- Raised $75 million in funding — financially stable for growth
Cons
- Former MLM consultants saw significant income changes with the 2024 model pivot
- Products remain significantly premium-priced vs. comparable skincare
- Transition to affiliate model resulted in 100+ job cuts
Our Verdict
Winner: Rodan + Fields
3.0
Based on our analysis, Rodan + Fields edges out with an overall rating of 3.0 compared to MONAT Global's 2.0. Both options have their merits, but Rodan + Fields offers a stronger overall opportunity based on our evaluation criteria including compensation structure, product quality, and long-term viability.
Ready to Get Started with Rodan + Fields?
Based on our analysis, Rodan + Fields offers the best opportunity for success.