NetNet vs Peel

Peel and NetNet both sell to DTC brands and both promise better decisions, which is roughly where the similarity ends. One measures customers over time; the other measures orders at the moment they ship.

Two halves of the same equation

Contribution margin per order tells you what a single order contributes after every cost of serving it. Retention tells you how many orders a customer will place.

Multiply them and you have what a customer is worth. Neither figure alone gets you there, and both failure modes are expensive:

Margin without retention understates customer value in a business with genuine repeat purchase, so you underbid for customers your competitors are happily paying more for.

Retention without margin overstates it, because a customer who buys four times at a margin you never measured may be producing less than you assume — particularly if their orders are heavy, discounted or frequently returned.

Peel is built for the second half. NetNet is built for the first.

Where Peel is deeper

Repurchase rate, churn, cohort trends, RFM segmentation, subscription reporting, and audiences exportable into Klaviyo and Meta. Its listing describes 150-plus metrics with ready-made templates.

The audience export is worth calling out because it crosses from analysis into action. Producing a segment and pushing it into your email platform or ad account is a workflow, not a report, and it is the kind of thing a profit calculator has no business attempting.

Where NetNet is deeper

The cost model behind an individual order. Per-weight and per-region shipping rules against carrier invoices, gateway rates including the tax charged on fees with a test tool, refund costs attributed back to the originating order, per-order overrides when reality differs from the rule, and four profit layers that reconcile to one another.

None of that helps you understand churn. All of it is required before “what is a customer worth” has a defensible answer.

The pricing shapes are opposite

This is the most practically useful difference, and it inverts depending on your size.

Peel is free up to 16,000 orders a month across three stores — genuinely generous, and for a growing store with no analytics budget it is hard to argue against. Above that, the entry paid plan is $499 a month.

NetNet has no free tier and starts at $15, metered on monthly revenue rather than order count.

So a store doing 3,000 orders a month pays nothing for Peel and, depending on its revenue, $15 to $99 for NetNet. A store doing 25,000 orders pays $499 for Peel and, depending on order value, $99 or $199 for NetNet. Neither is consistently cheaper — it depends entirely on where you sit.

Where each one misleads on its own

Both tools produce numbers that are correct and incomplete, and the incompleteness runs in opposite directions.

Retention data without margin tends to encourage spending. A healthy repeat rate makes customers look valuable, and the natural conclusion is to acquire more of them — which is right only if the orders they place actually contribute. A cohort that buys four times at a contribution margin nobody has measured can be worth considerably less than the curve implies.

Margin data without retention tends to encourage caution. Judged on the first order alone, a business with genuine repeat purchase looks like it can afford far less acquisition cost than it really can, so it underbids and loses customers to competitors doing the fuller calculation.

Neither error announces itself. Both look like disciplined decision-making from inside.

Running both

For a retention-led brand this is a reasonable pairing, and more defensible than most two-tool arguments, because the products genuinely do not overlap. Peel answers what customers do; NetNet answers what the orders earned.

If you can only run one, the question is which half of the equation you are currently guessing at. A brand that knows its repeat rate precisely and has never costed a carrier invoice should start here. A brand that knows its margin to the cent and has never built a cohort curve should start there.